Developing story on Mel Tucker

#251
#251
hog88 said:
Only if MI State has an policy against fraternization. And since she wasn't an employee I'm betting they have no policy covering that.
Click to expand...
His contract covered:

- obligation to conduct himself professionally and ethically at all times
- moral turpitude
- conduct that brings public disrespect, contempt, or ridicule upon the University

They cited violations of all of those things in their termination notice. He's cooked and has absolutely no case if he chooses to fight this.

 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#252
#252
I don't think an inappropriate phone call is grounds to get the University out of paying out $80 million. I think Tucker has a case that they're using this as an excuse to get rid of him. I think in the end the accuser will get a nice payday as will Tucker, although far less than $80mill. The university will also benefit in that they will rid themselves of a bad contract.
 
#253
#253
hog88 said:
Only if MI State has an policy against fraternization. And since she wasn't an employee I'm betting they have no policy covering that.
Click to expand...
If she's not an employee I see no problem with a football coach dating her. She can't expect to forever get paid to talk to the team.
 
#254
#254
05_never_again said:
His contract covered:

- obligation to conduct himself professionally and ethically at all times
- moral turpitude
- conduct that brings public disrespect, contempt, or ridicule upon the University

They cited violations of all of those things in their termination notice. He's cooked and has absolutely no case if he chooses to fight this.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised in the least that MIST would cite everything they can in his termination notice, they're trying to not pay a buyout. That doesn't mean it will stand up in court when Tucker files suit.

IMO it will be hard to convince a jury that having a consensual relationship that included a little phone sex with an outside contractor violates any of those clauses. Not a lawyer (thank goodness) but Tucker probably has a good case
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#255
#255
Sea Ray said:
I don't think an inappropriate phone call is grounds to get the University out of paying out $80 million. I think Tucker has a case that they're using this as an excuse to get rid of him. I think in the end the accuser will get a nice payday as will Tucker, although far less than $80mill. The university will also benefit in that they will rid themselves of a bad contract.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying this is 100% based on morality. This is 100% based on his job performance BUT, in the words of Richard Nixon about Watergate, "I gave them a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish. I guess if I'd been in their position, I'd have done the same thing."

He's not going to win this. He may get a settlement of some kind but nothing like the contract he had. He did this to himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpookyAction and 05_never_again
#256
#256
hog88 said:
I'm not surprised in the least that MIST would cite everything they can in his termination notice, they're trying to not pay a buyout. That doesn't mean it will stand up in court when Tucker files suit.

IMO it will be hard to convince a jury that having a consensual relationship that included a little phone sex with an outside contractor violates any of those clauses. Not a lawyer (thank goodness) but Tucker probably has a good case
Click to expand...
He was never alone with her and she specifically said she wouldn't meet him without her assistant being with her.

What does that tell you about this "relationship" they had?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#257
#257
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
He was never alone with her and she specifically said she wouldn't meet him without her assistant being with her.

What does that tell you about this "relationship" they had?
Click to expand...
I think that helps his case. If none of that happened then it really does boil down to one phone call
 
#258
#258
stolitonic said:
Most of their top choices-why? Would be a lateral move at best for most of them. Why would DeBoer want to leave for a "little brother" school in the same conference as of next year?

I may need to sign up for membership on some Spartan forums and see if I can get the Grumors started
Click to expand...
Washington is a way better job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange.
#259
#259
Sea Ray said:
I think that helps his case. If none of that happened then it really does boil down to one phone call
Click to expand...
Lots of phone calls and texts, I believe. I'll bet those will show her leading him on and never actually delivering what he wanted. He gave her gifts, etc also.

Still, it makes him look like a fool who got played that it lasted something like 18 months and he never "sealed the deal."

Is he going to say "It is love, though, at least for me" and look even more like a fool? There's just not a way for Tucker to look like anything but a hormonal teenager with no game whatsoever.

You're a millionaire. If that's what you want to do, make it work or move on. There's enough golddiggers out there to go around so you don't have to pull it on a phone call with one you've never even touched. It's pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#260
#260
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
He was never alone with her and she specifically said she wouldn't meet him without her assistant being with her.

What does that tell you about this "relationship" they had?
Click to expand...

Nothing really since the number and length of their phone calls point to a consensual relationship.
 
#261
#261
hog88 said:
Nothing really since the number and length of their phone calls point to a consensual relationship.
Click to expand...
You can be led on by a woman but you'd better be dang sure it's okay with her BEFORE you whip it out on the phone or in person, especially if you have a business relationship and have never actually been alone with her.

It's just too much risk in his position and it's clearly embarrassing for him and Michigan State.

The bringing embarrassment on the University is in his contract. He's toast.
 
#262
#262
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
He was never alone with her and she specifically said she wouldn't meet him without her assistant being with her.

What does that tell you about this "relationship" they had?
Click to expand...
I would say it's shockingly specific information if true. If you were planning to accuse someone of sexual harassment, to claim this would be very useful.
 
#263
#263
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
You can be led on by a woman but you'd better be dang sure it's okay with her BEFORE you whip it out on the phone or in person, especially if you have a business relationship and have never actually been alone with her.

It's just too much risk in his position and it's clearly embarrassing for him and Michigan State.

The bringing embarrassment on the University is in his contract. He's toast.
Click to expand...

Of course but its a he said/she said deal unless she recorded the calls.

I agree that he's toast unless he can prove it was consensual although I think he gets a good portion of his buyout in a settlement.
 
#264
#264
hog88 said:
I'm not surprised in the least that MIST would cite everything they can in his termination notice, they're trying to not pay a buyout. That doesn't mean it will stand up in court when Tucker files suit.

IMO it will be hard to convince a jury that having a consensual relationship that included a little phone sex with an outside contractor violates any of those clauses. Not a lawyer (thank goodness) but Tucker probably has a good case
Click to expand...

Brother, as I said earlier-the man was making $9.5 million a year. He is no doubt the highest paid employee at MichSt and probably the second highest paid state employee in Michigan.

A key component of his job is managing the football program. Everything about it in the end falls on Tuckers shoulders. Players he recruits, scheme he wants to run, etc etc, all the way down to who gets to speak to the team.

The simple fact that he was in a position of power over her in that he held future paid speaking gigs for the school in his hands is enough to get him crucified in court

I dunno if you have been living under a rock for the last 30 years or have simply never been a people manager, but that kind of thing just doesn't fly anymore.

Like I said, I was given that talk as a young lad in like 1996 as a stupid college kid working a part time job. After working there two months,
- I was basically administering the guys backroom business. Ordering, inventory, accounting, etc. Dude would not leave if the business was open and I was not there. Managers knew never to even bother me or ask what I was doing. Inevitably, I realized I deserved just a bit more money than I was getting so had a talk. Very simply-you want more money and an official title-i had to stop banging every female cashier he hired.

Hell, even after I graduated and got a "real" job-I have lost count of the number of guys I worked with who have screwed their careers over by doing something similar. Luckily, I was smart enough to avoid fraternization with employees-they were not. Employee invited me to a wedding, baby shower, etc etc they got a gift card but I "couldn't make it".

Gonna wager somebody had that talk with Tucker somewhere along the line.


Do I think the accuser probably led him on a bit-sure. Does that really change anything-nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SayUWantAreVOLution
#265
#265
hog88 said:
Of course but its a he said/she said deal unless she recorded the calls.

I agree that he's toast unless he can prove it was consensual although I think he gets a good portion of his buyout in a settlement.
Click to expand...
His buyout is something like $75M, I think. It's ridiculous money.

Supposedly there's over 1000 pages in the complaint filing. I'm not really worried Michigan State will lose this but you've probably got a point that they may cut their embarrassment and send him packing with $10M or something.

They're going to end up paying her too, probably, and whatever that amount is should lower his settlement. She may sue Tucker also, if she hasn't already, and grab some of his settlement.

I have zero sympathy for him. At least Bobby Petrino got to take her for a ride before it crashed.
 
#266
#266
Sea Ray said:
I don't think an inappropriate phone call is grounds to get the University out of paying out $80 million. I think Tucker has a case that they're using this as an excuse to get rid of him. I think in the end the accuser will get a nice payday as will Tucker, although far less than $80mill. The university will also benefit in that they will rid themselves of a bad contract.
Click to expand...
hog88 said:
I'm not surprised in the least that MIST would cite everything they can in his termination notice, they're trying to not pay a buyout. That doesn't mean it will stand up in court when Tucker files suit.

IMO it will be hard to convince a jury that having a consensual relationship that included a little phone sex with an outside contractor violates any of those clauses. Not a lawyer (thank goodness) but Tucker probably has a good case
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter that the university is using this as an excuse to get rid of him. Of course they are.

The point is that he pretty clearly violated multiple stipulations in his contract about damaging the reputation of the university. Can he really make a convincing argument that his actions haven't hurt the university's reputation?

He's done. It's really a pretty simple proposition. It doesn't matter if it was consensual or not (I'd say it probably was), doesn't matter if she was an employee or not.
 
#270
#270
Sea Ray said:
I think it'll be more than that. About $20-30mill
Click to expand...
The measure, I'd guess, is further embarrassment to the university + legal fees vs money to go away.

I thought UT would pay Pruitt some money. I was wrong. I thought Pruitt knew and would divulge where other bodies were buried but he apparently had no cards to play.

It all depends on what Mel Tucker knows and is willing to talk about concerning Michigan State. If he doesn't have any cards to play, I'm not sure why they'd pay him too much.
 
#271
#271
hog88 said:
I'm not surprised in the least that MIST would cite everything they can in his termination notice, they're trying to not pay a buyout. That doesn't mean it will stand up in court when Tucker files suit.

IMO it will be hard to convince a jury that having a consensual relationship that included a little phone sex with an outside contractor violates any of those clauses. Not a lawyer (thank goodness) but Tucker probably has a good case
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he ever should have signed anything saying he could be fired for any conduct that brings ridicule to the university. That is pretty broad.
 
#273
#273
GrayWaterCanine said:
I'm not sure he ever should have signed anything saying he could be fired for any conduct that brings ridicule to the university. That is pretty broad.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the legal interpretation of that but if we could've fired Pruitt after GA State on that basis, I would've allowed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Plecoptera, 05_never_again and 2 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top