Please tell me the specific sentence in this non-disparagement clause that makes it apply to the spouse.
I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but the sentence that would come into play is bolded.
10. Non-Disparagement. Employer agrees that it will not disparage or encourage or induce others to disparage Employee. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “disparage” includes, without limitation, without limitation, any statement, written or oral, public or private, or engage in any other actions which disparages or discredits Employee to the press and/or media, any individual or entity with whom Employee had or has a business relationship which would adversely affect in any manner his reputation. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude Employer from responding truthfully to a valid subpoena, a request by a governmental agency in connection with any investigation it is conducting, or as otherwise required by law.
The burden on the plaintiff in the regard to the spouse would be to show they were encouraged or induced. Following on from there, doing something like speaking to the media or posting on a message board could be a violation.
EDIT TO ADD:
Having now read the whole document, I smell a settlement coming. And removing him from the Website rosters for teams he coached, while leaving other coaches on their rosters after they were terminated... yeah, that was really stupid.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Please tell me the specific sentence in this non-disparagement clause that makes it apply to the spouse.
I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but the sentence that would come into play is bolded.
10. Non-Disparagement. Employer agrees that it will not disparage or encourage or induce others to disparage Employee. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “disparage” includes, without limitation, without limitation, any statement, written or oral, public or private, or engage in any other actions which disparages or discredits Employee to the press and/or media, any individual or entity with whom Employee had or has a business relationship which would adversely affect in any manner his reputation. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude Employer from responding truthfully to a valid subpoena, a request by a governmental agency in connection with any investigation it is conducting, or as otherwise required by law.
The burden on the plaintiff in the regard to the spouse would be to show they were encouraged or induced. Following on from there, doing something like speaking to the media or posting on a message board could be a violation.
EDIT TO ADD:
Having now read the whole document, I smell a settlement coming. And removing him from the Website rosters for teams he coached, while leaving other coaches on their rosters after they were terminated... yeah, that was really stupid.
There's no way they are going to be able to prove that Porsha TOLD her husband to call Letsrun.
Libel is publishing something defamatory. There was no act of "publishing" anything when they deleted him. An absence of something published is not libel.
If that is considered libel, then almost every coach in the country can sue their previous employer.
I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but the sentence that would come into play is bolded.
10. Non-Disparagement. Employer agrees that it will not disparage or encourage or induce others to disparage Employee. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “disparage” includes, without limitation, without limitation, any statement, written or oral, public or private, or engage in any other actions which disparages or discredits Employee to the press and/or media, any individual or entity with whom Employee had or has a business relationship which would adversely affect in any manner his reputation. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude Employer from responding truthfully to a valid subpoena, a request by a governmental agency in connection with any investigation it is conducting, or as otherwise required by law.
The burden on the plaintiff in the regard to the spouse would be to show they were encouraged or induced. Following on from there, doing something like speaking to the media or posting on a message board could be a violation.
EDIT TO ADD:
Having now read the whole document, I smell a settlement coming. And removing him from the Website rosters for teams he coached, while leaving other coaches on their rosters after they were terminated... yeah, that was really stupid.
There's no way they are going to be able to prove that Porsha TOLD her husband to call Letsrun.
Libel is publishing something defamatory. There was no act of "publishing" anything when they deleted him. An absence of something published is not libel.
If that is considered libel, then almost every coach in the country can sue their previous employer.
What's with you and your obsession with libel? You're deflecting and distracting from the main issues. Yes, you're right that the act of removing him from the website is not libel, but Wood isn't arguing that it is. The complaint says it was retaliatory, which it does look like if they didn't do that with other former coaches.
As already said more than once, Wood argued defamation via libel, slander or both, since he doesn't (yet) know, even on his facts, whether the defamation was spoken or emailed or both. It doesn't matter, so drop it. Discovery would be telling, and I'm not a judge but there seems more than enough here to survive an initial motion to dismiss.
More importantly, you're ignoring the non-disparagement clause. That's probably the easiest one here.
Husband's involvement may or may not implicate this case depending on the particular facts, but it's a TERRIBLE optic for the defense and any jury is going to assume that his knowledge was from his wife (which in and of itself would breach the non-disparagement clause). How else would he know what happened on the inside at Dartmouth?
Just let it go. Making stupid arguments on this site isn't going to win the case for you/her/Dartmouth. That's true for me too, but I'm just speculating on potential outcomes and not pulling for an outcome nor slanting my analysis. As before, we're only reading the initial complaint so there's a long way to go, but it's crazy to read it and say that it has no merit and will be immediately dismissed.
Lawyer here. This is an odd and misinformed post from someone who clearly has an axe to grind and knows nothing about the law.
My quick take after skimming the complaint is that Wood has a strong claim. He has pretty good evidence that Harnden was disparaging him, and given her role at Dartmouth this would implicate Dartmouth at least as far as the breach of contract claim. As an aside, she almost certainly was aware of the terms of the separation agreement, but that wouldn't absolve her or Dartmouth even if she didn't.
So, on these facts, the breach of contract claim is pretty straightforward and compelling. Libel by her is also pretty clear and I don't think he's remotely a public figure so legal standard is lower. Tortious interference might play too.
I have just one question about your analysis...
You don't think that a coach at an Ivy League school is a public figure?
As the law is generally applied, an Ivy League cross country coach is not a public figure per se. Neither is a professor, unless s/he does something to publicize oneself outside of normal professorial duties.
There's no way they are going to be able to prove that Porsha TOLD her husband to call Letsrun.
Libel is publishing something defamatory. There was no act of "publishing" anything when they deleted him. An absence of something published is not libel.
If that is considered libel, then almost every coach in the country can sue their previous employer.
More importantly, you're ignoring the non-disparagement clause. That's probably the easiest one here.
Husband's involvement may or may not implicate this case depending on the particular facts, but it's a TERRIBLE optic for the defense and any jury is going to assume that his knowledge was from his wife (which in and of itself would breach the non-disparagement clause). How else would he know what happened on the inside at Dartmouth?
OBVIOUSLY if something was going down at work, the spouse is going to hear about it that day. Prior to the separation agreement, Harnden could tell her spouse everything.
Do you really think the wife would not say ANYTHING about the situation for weeks and months, and would only tell the husband months later, AFTER signing the nondisparagement clause???????
Having now read the whole document, I smell a settlement coming. And removing him from the Website rosters for teams he coached, while leaving other coaches on their rosters after they were terminated... yeah, that was really stupid.
Agreed, Dartmouth would not want this going to a jury. The coach's career is likely finished in any case ("Nothing dies on the Internet."), but it would be interesting to see what affirmative steps Dartmouth would be willing to take to "correct" (not really: Nothing dies...) its missteps.
However, I have to think the parties would agree that no details of a settlement would be made public, so we'd never really know. Certainly Dartmouth would insist on that.
More importantly, you're ignoring the non-disparagement clause. That's probably the easiest one here.
Husband's involvement may or may not implicate this case depending on the particular facts, but it's a TERRIBLE optic for the defense and any jury is going to assume that his knowledge was from his wife (which in and of itself would breach the non-disparagement clause). How else would he know what happened on the inside at Dartmouth?
OBVIOUSLY if something was going down at work, the spouse is going to hear about it that day. Prior to the separation agreement, Harnden could tell her spouse everything.
Do you really think the wife would not say ANYTHING about the situation for weeks and months, and would only tell the husband months later, AFTER signing the nondisparagement clause???????
Absolutely crazy.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I said "depending on the particular facts." It's a terrible optic regardless of the particular facts.
That’s the job. Be a professional. I don’t care one way or another about the case in question, but have been and am an adult in the workforce with a spouse who understands what that entails. And there’s certainly work matters I never share with my spouse and those I do are understood to not be discussed. If you can’t follow that, don’t do anything requiring it.
I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but the sentence that would come into play is bolded.
10. Non-Disparagement. Employer agrees that it will not disparage or encourage or induce others to disparage Employee. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “disparage” includes, without limitation, without limitation, any statement, written or oral, public or private, or engage in any other actions which disparages or discredits Employee to the press and/or media, any individual or entity with whom Employee had or has a business relationship which would adversely affect in any manner his reputation. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude Employer from responding truthfully to a valid subpoena, a request by a governmental agency in connection with any investigation it is conducting, or as otherwise required by law.
The burden on the plaintiff in the regard to the spouse would be to show they were encouraged or induced. Following on from there, doing something like speaking to the media or posting on a message board could be a violation.
EDIT TO ADD:
Having now read the whole document, I smell a settlement coming. And removing him from the Website rosters for teams he coached, while leaving other coaches on their rosters after they were terminated... yeah, that was really stupid.
Absolutely NOTHING you just typed is true. You wouldn't last 1 day in law school.
That’s the job. Be a professional. I don’t care one way or another about the case in question, but have been and am an adult in the workforce with a spouse who understands what that entails. And there’s certainly work matters I never share with my spouse and those I do are understood to not be discussed. If you can’t follow that, don’t do anything requiring it.
If an employee was trying to get her fired, she is 100% telling her spouse that day.
I was recruited by Wood. I thought he seemed like a nice coach and his athletes seemed to like him on my visit. I hope he’s actually a stand-up guy, but I’ve been disappointed by coaches before. I hope everyone gets what they deserve; whatever that means in this instance.
This is one of the most frivolous lawsuits of all time.
-He's literally suing because they removed his name off the online roster of the years that he was at Dartmouth. He is calling it "TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE IN PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP".........schools literally do that all the time. It is NOT "publishing false information" as they have no responsibility to keep the link to his bio active for the rest of eternity.
-He is suing Dartmouth because an employee of Dartmouth who didn't know there was a nondisclosure agreement, gave Justin a bad recommendation.
-He is suing because the spouse of the person in the non-disclosure agreement said somethings about him. But the spouse is not bound by the non-disclosure.
-He is suing because a member of the Dartmouth booster club (volunteer, not employee) said that the coaches had said that he quit. Well, if you sign a separation agreement then you technically did quit!
Lawyer here. This is an odd and misinformed post from someone who clearly has an axe to grind and knows nothing about the law.
My quick take after skimming the complaint is that Wood has a strong claim. He has pretty good evidence that Harnden was disparaging him, and given her role at Dartmouth this would implicate Dartmouth at least as far as the breach of contract claim. As an aside, she almost certainly was aware of the terms of the separation agreement, but that wouldn't absolve her or Dartmouth even if she didn't.
So, on these facts, the breach of contract claim is pretty straightforward and compelling. Libel by her is also pretty clear and I don't think he's remotely a public figure so legal standard is lower. Tortious interference might play too.
In general I share this view. I would add that by strong claim what is meant by this phrase is that the suit at least in part can survive summary judgment. From a monied defendant’s standpoint, this is crucial threshold. I wouldn’t think Dartmouth would be eager to litigate with a recently deposed head coach as a key witness.
in case the lawyers go poring through this thread for evidence and discovery, I would just like to state my opinion that the job of a lawyer is to lie more convincingly than the opposing lawyer.
In theory you lawyers are only supposed to tell the truth, but that truth is made of facts that you haggle endlessly over allowing into evidence. Then you spin that evidence into the narrative that best fits your client. This is by definition never the complete truth - it's your job to try to suppress whatever part of the truth works against your party.
Why did you want that job? Why should you be paid a damn thing? Why does society act like you are respectable people?
Not barret. Even the BYU women's coach from india or Mike Smith are not public figures. You would have to be a government employee or celebrity to be considered a public figure.
Last I checked there are 4 or 5 universities in San Antonio that are part of the Catholic Clergy. Incarnate Word is not one of them. Trinity definitely is. Lady of the Lake and St Mary's definately are.
Calls completed.
"No, that person does not coach here."
Any other hot tips? I've got all day and I'm not shy about picking up the phone.
St. Mary's is only possibilty, since he claims to coach D2.
St. Mary's hasn't had a cross country team since 2012, at least.