Alberto lied about firing Magness - Nike document proves it was mutual

Agree with you wrote:

Confirmation Bias wrote:

100% guarantee that is a boilerplate letter from the HR department. I've fired people for performance reasons I would never re-hire and they've gotten nice letters like that in hopes they will be successful somewhere else. That's the way it works in corporate america.

Second this. That's how it works. In fact I 100% expected that this is what happened before I saw this article.

LOL boilerplate... when you're terminating someone for cause, you do not title the letter "Mutual Termination of Contract", underline it for extra emphasis, thank the person being fired for their service, and close it by saying you'd be open to rehiring the employee in the future. You write a terse, unemotional letter saying that they are terminated. If the employee did something wrong and agrees to go away quietly, then they're the one who writes the letter and it's called a letter of resignation.

If you gave this "mutual termination" letter to someone who was being fired, they could simply not sign it. And then they would posess a letter from your company stating that they were a good employee - perfect fodder for a wrongful termination or discrimination lawsuit. I don't think the Nike legal department is that dumb.

Oh, and when posting under a different name to back up your other post try not to repeat the same phrases, like "100%".

...Except that it's not a letter that needs to be signed, and it would not be useful in such a lawsuit because it provides proof that they intended to leave.

No I am not the same person. Ask for the IPs to be checked if you think you're right.

Confirmation Bias wrote:

100% guarantee that is a boilerplate letter from the HR department. I've fired people for performance reasons I would never re-hire and they've gotten nice letters like that in hopes they will be successful somewhere else. That's the way it works in corporate america.

Precisely.

Nice try Matt Lawton. Better luck next time, bud.

Read this entire thread very carefully. Look at the dates. Someone with insider knowledge was posting:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4673418

Man Overboard wrote:

Nice try Matt Lawton. Better luck next time, bud.

It's an astonishingly weak rebuttal by Matt Lawton and the Daily Mail.

Agree with you wrote:

Welcome PR Team! wrote:

Wrong. Not if it's a contract.

If you gave this "mutual termination" letter to someone who was being fired, they could simply not sign it. And then they would posess a letter from your company stating that they were a good employee - perfect fodder for a wrongful termination or discrimination lawsuit. I don't think the Nike legal department is that dumb.

...Except that it's not a letter that needs to be signed, and it would not be useful in such a lawsuit because it provides proof that they intended to leave.

No I am not the same person. Ask for the IPs to be checked if you think you're right.

Anyone who has fired people or removed them for them jobs, etc knows that you provide a mutual termination letter/agreement and that that is well AFTER you have determined that the employee is not going to continue working for you. The employer always is the one proving the agreement and it is to ensure that you (I.e., the employer) will NOT be subject to a claim of wrongful termination or future lawsuit by the employee because that's part of the agreement. Nearly every employer regardless of size uses a "mutual termination" agreement, and they usually only differ in if and how many "nice" things are included. The reason an employee signs is bc there is usually a carrot (some sort of severance pay) and also a stick (spoken/unspoken but clearly made known) that if you don't sign you won't get severance, will be terminated and will not be provided a future good reference.

I've never heard of a mutual termination agreement being brought up by an employee who resigns. It doesn't happen that way. Anyone in biz or HR knows that. It is done after an employer decides to terminate an employee.

So if the Daily Mail or whoever is now trying to pretend that a mutual termination letter equals leaving on good terms of his own volition I call complete and intentional obfuscation and BS.

from the past? wrote:

Read this entire thread very carefully. Look at the dates. Someone with insider knowledge was posting:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4673418

Whoa...good find.

"doseitright" sums things up nicely on page 4: "those who leave for a new job already have a job lined up. Magness basically said he had nowhere to go."

Sleazazar wrote:

Daily Mail has a copy of the record contradicting Salazars claim he was fired.

Nike document said they mutually agreed to part ways, expressed hope that Magness would work with Nike again in the future:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3138258/Alberto-Salazar-issues-defence-explanations-not-add-up.html

Lawton knows the mutual termination is SOP and a LEGAL document for employers to avoid risk of wrongful termination or future HR related lawsuits and pretends that it means "mutual" as in we just decided to part ways. Complete BS.

And the chickensh$t Daily Mail isn't even allowing comments on the story online.

This is the same tabloid Daily Mail that the BroJos have been plastering the home page with their gossip mongering garbage. Weak f'ing tea!

TrackCoach wrote:

Sleazazar wrote:

Daily Mail has a copy of the record contradicting Salazars claim he was fired.

Nike document said they mutually agreed to part ways, expressed hope that Magness would work with Nike again in the future:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3138258/Alberto-Salazar-issues-defence-explanations-not-add-up.html

This collaborates what Alberto said; what am I missing.

A question mark and an understanding of the difference between "collaborates" and "corroborates", for starters.

Yep, Lawton is either naive or intentionally misleading if he thinks this actually "defends" Magness. He's going to have to do better than that.

Daily Mail has a proud history of being intentionally misleading.

Agreed. Lawyer here, not an employment law specialist but have worked with employment lawyers for our shared law firm clients and later for my company on termination matters enough times to recognize a termination agreement and mutual release of claims. Surprised no one has mentioned the release of claims...99% of the time that's the primary goal for any company firing an employee and the most significant reason for the letter. In nasty situations the release can go on for a couple of pages, so this is a "gentler" and a bit of a boiler plate version but is certainly protective of Nike. This is not at all evidence that Alberto is lying.

I've never heard of a mutual termination agreement being brought up by an employee who resigns. It doesn't happen that way. Anyone in biz or HR knows that. It is done after an employer decides to terminate an employee.

So if the Daily Mail or whoever is now trying to pretend that a mutual termination letter equals leaving on good terms of his own volition I call complete and intentional obfuscation and BS.

Agree with you wrote:

...Except that it's not a letter that needs to be signed, and it would not be useful in such a lawsuit because it provides proof that they intended to leave.

Is that why there's a line for Steve Magness's signature, and underneath it says "agreed and accepted"? Because it's not a letter to be signed? And how would you know the recipient agrees with the terms of the letter if they don't sign it?

Also, please work on your posting skills, you messed up all the text in the part you quoted. It's not your fault, you only started posting here a couple days ago and that last forum they assigned you to had a different format.

And remember, all NOPers are dopers!

Link wrote:

oh Really wrote:

The contract was not renewed. The letter is a nice way of letting Mags down.

Incompetence , sexual harassment what else did Mags do??

What? 5 hours in and Salazar's claims are already coming undone.

More to come. Al Sal's fabrication was very poorly executed. You can't even get through the first page and see they could not keep the lies straight.

Did Magness ever sign that letter? It looks like there is a place for a signature but there is no signature. Magness said he questioned Alberto about the testo and pred label on the chart in a meeting with ALSAL. When did he renew the first 1yr contract, was it before or after this meeting. If he was " fired " shortly after does he have any legal recourse for a retaliation/ whistleblower claim? What is the statute of limitations on something like that? If the allegations of harassment are just now coming out and Alberto is just now saying he was fired instead of what was said at the time, a mutual split, is that new grounds for an employment lawsuit based on retaliation for whistleblowing. What are the state employment laws in Oregon.

Sleazazar wrote:

Daily Mail has a copy of the record contradicting Salazars claim he was fired.

Nike document said they mutually agreed to part ways, expressed hope that Magness would work with Nike again in the future:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3138258/Alberto-Salazar-issues-defence-explanations-not-add-up.html

Hey Sleazazar - Since this has now been exposed as complete BS and it does not contradict Salazar's claim that he informed Magness that his contract wasn't to be renewed and that he waste be , terminated (and that anyone who believes a legal document's name "mutual termination" actually means anything other than the employer protecting its own ass) - can you/the OP acknowledge as much?

Welcome PR Team! wrote:

LOL boilerplate... when you're terminating someone for cause, you do not title the letter "Mutual Termination of Contract", underline it for extra emphasis, thank the person being fired for their service, and close it by saying you'd be open to rehiring the employee in the future.

HR departments use standard boilerplate letters to avoid being sued. I've received 3 of them.

This is unusual in the over-emphasis on the mutual nature of the agreement.Maybe that's because neither wanted to go through a formal termination process.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Welcome PR Team! wrote:

LOL boilerplate... when you're terminating someone for cause, you do not title the letter "Mutual Termination of Contract", underline it for extra emphasis, thank the person being fired for their service, and close it by saying you'd be open to rehiring the employee in the future.

HR departments use standard boilerplate letters to avoid being sued. I've received 3 of them.

This is unusual in the over-emphasis on the mutual nature of the agreement.Maybe that's because neither wanted to go through a formal termination process.

It's unusually brief but nothing unusual about "mutual" nature. It's a legal document that is meant to accomplish one thing - reduce/eliminate lawsuits (both parties release all claims against the other). It has nothing to do with mutual or anything relates to the facts of what happened to get to this point.

PS - I've fired dozens of employees and used a mutual termination in all instances.

The dollar sign rules wrote:

Daily Mail has a proud history of being intentionally misleading.

to the Brojos.

we done with this one? wrote:

Hey Sleazazar

Yeah Magna-sleaze???