Doug Logan Lawsuit - USATF being petty?

Sure, there could be criminal liability, but it would all be based on the facts (i.e. how did USATF get information that Indiana tax returns were not filed). Obviously there could to be a violation of the very strict Privacy Act regarding income tax records. Whether a violation of law is civil or criminal depends on the intent of the parties involved.

he was fired because he was going to get rid of every sh!tface own the board. They fired him to save their own asses (hightower, etc).

What weak drivel from USATF. The contract renewal last summer speaks more to their satisfaction with his performance than this stuff. A gift to a female athlete?

how about the brosjo practicing some real journalism here? they seem to be doing a pretty good job of putting the pieces together for a story that no other news people are really following.

Get Real Real wrote:

Okay it is a holiday...but this is a bid dramatic development in this story...

And hardly any messages.

This board is in decline, clearly people have tired of the anonymous low class schtick/ Except for a small handful of stalwart sickies.

You've forgotten one thing: most people don't care about USATF.

Especially when they could be spending time with their families instead of posting about in on a message board.

Based on personal experience with the CO Assoc. I've never seen such a group of petty, minipulative people. They (CO) ran off the entire LDR committee. If the national organization is anything like our CO group, I'd tend to side with Logan.

some real journalism here?

There's no journalism at fan boy sites. They have no accountability. No review boards. No public oversight. Fan boy web sites are worse than USATF, NYRR, BAA, NCAA, IAAF, etc. when it comes to transparency, corruption, and accountability.

10/10

Old XC Dad wrote:

The USATF case might be stronger if they hadn't renewed Logan's contract with a raise just weeks before they fired him.

This is the crux of USATF's problem in their case. Their idiots.

However, if they can prove fraud, expense report abuse etc then they have a shot. Its a question if this was presented as grounds for dismissal or after the fact witch hunting.

Think Mark Hurd at HP. Of course they offered him a package though.

A few lawyers have written us. So I can spend some time with the family I'm just going to paste their emails here together. Here we go:

Lawyer #1

1.                   A caveat:  it’s always dangerous to comment on a breach of contract dispute, without having read through all the terms of the contract.   Oops, excuse me, “term sheet.”  Just like it’s hard to comment on the outcome of a trial unless you have watched the entire trial.

2.                   That being said, firing someone (Logan) ostensibly for cause, and then saying, “Oh yeah, after the fact we discovered all this additional stuff” . . . . . that certainly won’t fly as far as the USATF’s initial motion to dismiss Logan’s countersuit.   It doesn’t mean that the USATF can’t ultimately prevail (i.e., prove that they had cause to fire him and that they did so appropriately) (not that I’m saying they will win, but it could happen)  -  rather the issue for the court right now is whether Logan’s countersuit should be summarily dismissed by the judge (that appears to be the posture of the case right now).  And I think they’ll lose.

3.                   These cases very rarely go to trial.  They typically settle.  In the same sense that Edwin Moses typically won the races he entered.

4.                   There’s always a lot of posturing in these court filings.  The allegation re:  money to female athlete seems amazingly thin.   You’d think that if they had more, they would have said more.

Just one lawyer’s opinion.

I am a California real estate attorney but have enough experience with employment law to say that USATF is going to lose big time unless there is more than what I have seen so far.

The argument that his failure to follow their direction constitutes a failure to perform his duties and is therefore just cause for termination is absurd.

Cal lawyer

I should have mentioned in my earlier email that generally you can not use what you later discover as a basis to justify prior action.  In other words, USATF can not use the fact that they now know that Logan did not pay Indiana income tax to justify the prior termination.

Cal lawyer

From a CPA 

A taxpayer working IN a state ALWAYS pays tax in that state.  Florida residency is irrelevant.  You may be able to apportion wages based on actual time spent in Indiana working  and time spent working outside Indiana.  But you are NOT totally exempt from Indiana tax just because you claim Florida residency.

wejo wrote:

From a CPA 

A taxpayer working IN a state ALWAYS pays tax in that state.  Florida residency is irrelevant.  You may be able to apportion wages based on actual time spent in Indiana working  and time spent working outside Indiana.  But you are NOT totally exempt from Indiana tax just because you claim Florida residency.

What I'm wondering if how they know he didn't pay any tax. I can him directing USATF to not withhold IN tax, and then paying later on his own. He seems like the type that would have a sharp tax guy. Does USATF really have access to his federal and state tax returns? I would think felony tax evasion would be something they bring up prior to termination. Their claims "after the fact" just seem flimsy...

Hey Homes, pay your Taxes. Just because you are Mexican doesn't give you an excuse to cheat America out of your fair share.

"From a CPA

A taxpayer working IN a state ALWAYS pays tax in that state. Florida residency is irrelevant. You may be able to apportion wages based on actual time spent in Indiana working and time spent working outside Indiana. But you are NOT totally exempt from Indiana tax just because you claim Florida residency."

==============

This is theoretically correct, but practically may not be correct. A taxpayer may well be working in one State, making significant income, while also making income from another State, which he declares as his "TAX HOME". Understand that the law can be complex as to the facts that actually determine the "Tax Home". Without taking the time to actually compare the difference in tax rates between Florida and Indiana, it suffices to say that is possible that the "TAX HOME" tax rates are significantly higher than those in a second state where a taxpayer is working. In that case, it is possible that the Tax Credit from taxes paid to the "Tax Home" state would be sufficient to wipe out any tax due to the second State. Were that the case here, no tax would be due to Indiana. We don't know all the facts, so it is better to let the parties go on with their spat. I too wonder how USATF would possible know that he did not file a tax return in Indiana. It is a criminal law violation to illegally secure this type of private information.

88 miles per hour wrote:

wejo wrote:

From a CPA 

A taxpayer working IN a state ALWAYS pays tax in that state.  Florida residency is irrelevant.  You may be able to apportion wages based on actual time spent in Indiana working  and time spent working outside Indiana.  But you are NOT totally exempt from Indiana tax just because you claim Florida residency.

What I'm wondering if how they know he didn't pay any tax. I can him directing USATF to not withhold IN tax, and then paying later on his own. He seems like the type that would have a sharp tax guy. Does USATF really have access to his federal and state tax returns? I would think felony tax evasion would be something they bring up prior to termination. Their claims "after the fact" just seem flimsy...

They know because he instructed the USATF not to withhold any IN tax from his income. I don't know IN tax law but that seems odd to me. If anyone can tell his/her employer not to withhold state tax, then I would think that a ton of people would do that with the specific intent of never paying any tax to any state with the hope that he/she slips through the cracks. Something doesn't seem right.

eb white wrote:

They know because he instructed the USATF not to withhold any IN tax from his income. I don't know IN tax law but that seems odd to me. If anyone can tell his/her employer not to withhold state tax, then I would think that a ton of people would do that with the specific intent of never paying any tax to any state with the hope that he/she slips through the cracks. Something doesn't seem right.

If you work at McDonalds that might be unusual, but for people in his income bracket, not unusual. Since a person of his financial stature probably has to make quarterly tax payments anyway, and since he would probably want to earn interest on HIS MONEY for 3 months, I would assume that he simply claims exempt and makes one lump quarterly payment.

USATF would have no idea how much he paid in taxes, or when, and to whom, and frankly it should be none of their business.

Bingo! 10/10 EOT

I'm a little surprised by some of these comments. There's actually a rather substantial body of case law, including opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, discussing the circumstances in which so-called "after-acquired evidence" (of, for example, unlawful on-the-job conduct or resume fraud in the initial hiring process) can be used as a defense to a former employee's claim that termination of the employment relationship was wrongful, unlawful, or a breach of the employment contract. I haven't bothered to research the issue under Indiana contract law, but I assume that USATF's lawyers had that case law in mind when they filed the counterclaim for declaratory relief.

That said, my initial impression is that USATF's counterclaim looks very weak. The assertion of contract illegality -- a great defense if the plaintiff is a prostitute or contract-killer suing for services rendered -- seems almost laughable here, and I suspect that the main effect of the allegations of "after-acquired evidence" will be to increase the expense of the litigation for both sides, and perhaps to increase the fees that USATF will eventually have to pay to Logan's attorneys under the contractual provision awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party in litigation. And since I am rather skeptical about the likelihood that Logan's contract and wage claims are covered by USATF's liabilty insurance, this looks to me like a very expensive mess for USATF.

That makes two of us.

I'm just hoping that if they settle, the settlement is not kept private. This is great theater so far, and if we don't get to see the outcome, I will be very disappointed.