Big Ten firing

[Texas Aggie]

Employers are not free to set any arbitrary standard they might choose. I don't remember a whole lot from law class, but IRC the standard CANNOT be arbitrary if it discriminates against a group of people with a perticular characteristic - and I'm relatively sure that Disability is on the list. If they are sued they must show why that group of people cannot get the job done.

As an attorney, I can tell you you are wrong about just about all of this.

First, there's no protection status for those with vision issues, especially in an area (officiating) where vision is of paramount importance. Do you really think if the Big 10 offered me a contract for next year and I lost my total vision in an accident, they'd wouldn't be able to terminate the contract? The ADA deals with severe disabilities that impair major life activities. This particular injury doesn't fall under the former and officiating doesn't fall under the latter.

Second, he is an independent contractor rather than an employee and is likely not covered. If someone has a case to the contrary let me know.

Finally, the burdens on employers have nothing to do with groups, but individuals.

Frankly, I don't think he has a case, but the Big 10 should have handled this thing a little better by putting him in a replay position or by not assigning him games with that coach. If he's going to the Orange Bowl, he's obviously got good reviews from some other coaches, and we all know that coach comfortability with an individual official often has little to do with that official's specific calls being correct or incorrect. I'm sure the Big 10 will settle the matter but this guy has burned his bridge.

[mcrowder]

Aggie touched on what will probably be the main sticking point should this actually get to trial.

Referees are not employees. They are independent contractors. While it's fashionable to say he was fired, in reality he was probably simply not renewed. I think it sucks that they won't let him work, considering that he's probably pretty damn good at his job and the supposed disability doesn't seem to be hampering him... but I don't think he really has much hope in a lawsuit here.

His best chance is to get public opinion behind him (maybe get this elevated to ESPN News status), and get his job back that way. I honestly don't think a lawsuit will go anywhere.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

His best chance is to get public opinion behind him (maybe get this elevated to ESPN News status), and get his job back that way. I honestly don't think a lawsuit will go anywhere.

Well, here's a start: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2525351

[TXMike]

While I still think the Conference has the right to contract or not contract with someone based on fairly arbitrary reasons, the situation may end up having a deeper impact. Example, now routine vision screening tests for refs might have to include peripheral vision tests. Do we have the "normal" 180 degree field of view or are we limited and how much of a limitation is acceptable, i.e. using 1 eye limits you to about 150 degrees field of view. Or, do we as refs need binocular vision so we can judge depth and distance accurately or are those vision factors that we as refs need not have "normal" ability in?

[Niner]

In regard to independent contractors, I think that PGA golfers are about as independent as they come; however, the PGA was FORCED IN COURT to accommodate that golfer with the bad leg. The Big Ten is HQ'ed in Illinois, so they will probably have to address IL law. I think it is a little weak to term him an independent contractor when the Big Ten trains him, evaluates him, disciplines him, directs his activities, sets behavior standards, set grooming standards, determines who he will work with, etc. The Big Ten claims they are ind. contractors, but they will have to prove it in court.

[BktBallRef]

If he's not an employee paid by the Big Ten, isn't recieving a W-2 from them, but reciving a MISC-1099 at the end of the year, then he's an independent contractor legally, no matter how much they train, evaluate, discipline, direct, set standards or groom him.

[STEVED21]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If he's not an employee paid by the Big Ten, isn't recieving a W-2 from them, but reciving a MISC-1099 at the end of the year, then he's an independent contractor legally, no matter how much they train, evaluate, discipline, direct, set standards or groom him.

BBR,
To be honest, whether you receive a w-2 or 1099 at the end of the year is way down at the bottom of the list that determines employee. independent contractor status. Control is probably #1. If the organization that pays you trains you, assigns you, disciplines you, sets your work standards, pays your travel expenses, you are more than likely an employee. I'm pretty sure that most Div 1 officials are employees.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Niner

In regard to independent contractors, I think that PGA golfers are about as independent as they come; however, the PGA was FORCED IN COURT to accommodate that golfer with the bad leg. The Big Ten is HQ'ed in Illinois, so they will probably have to address IL law. I think it is a little weak to term him an independent contractor when the Big Ten trains him, evaluates him, disciplines him, directs his activities, sets behavior standards, set grooming standards, determines who he will work with, etc. The Big Ten claims they are ind. contractors, but they will have to prove it in court.

PGA golfers are paid based on how they finish in a competition, with some obvious exceptions being appearance fees. In that way they are different than working for a flat rate. They aren't paid by the PGA they are paid by the different tournament sponsors. The players are members of the PGA not hired by the PGA, so to deny an otherwise capable member of your organization a chance to compete because of a handicap is a different ball of wax.

[Texas Aggie]

A lot of you guys are bringing up totally irrelevent facts and applying them here. While I don't practice employment law on a daily basis, I have litigated ADA cases and have a pretty good idea of how its applied. You'll just have to trust me on this.

In the PGA/Martin case, the SC ruled (horrible decision, incidentally) that the ADA covered PGA tour events since a golf course was a place of "public accomodation." Its highly doubtful that any Big 10 stadium field would be given similar status. And this term is key, since that Act applies only to this. You don't have to retrofit your bathroom to allow handicapped access to it unless your property is deemed public accomodation.

Additionally, the act provides, "a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." How exactly can the Big 10 make a reasonable accomodation to an official? Guarantee he's not going to have to be in any given position in a game?

Essentially, the arguments the SC rejected in the PGA case are different from what the Big 10 would say.

Further...

My point was employers are not free to set any arbitrary standard they wish.

This is simply not true. Arbitrary standards are not the measure of whether an employer (not applicable in this case anyway) has violated this statute or most other statutes. You need to get this out of your head, unless you have some authority for it.

You seem to think his disabilty isn't severe enough to qualify.

It isn't so much the severety as how its classified. You can't seriously suggest that a quadriplegic individual should be accomodated by the Big 10 to be a game official, even if he or she could do wonders with their wheelchair or have a surrogate throwing flags. Yet that disability is far more severe than the one here.

[Niner]

I think any lawyer would file a law suit to seek a settlement; however, I think he would also file a complaint with the Dept. of Labor. This is not a tax question, but a labor question. My experience with the DOL is that they come in with the assumption that labor has been screwed by the employer and they don't care what tax forms have been issued, they have a checklist for establishing an independent contractor (mentioned prior)---been thru it. Once they come in, they don't leave easily. They also make the assumption that labor has been forced to sign their rights away.

I think there will be a settlement, but he is asking for his job back, too. It will interesting to see where it goes.

[BktBallRef]

Settled? Possibly. Never go to trail? Count on it.

I empathize with the man as much as anyone. I simply don't think he has a case. You can say what you want to, all of us are independent contractors.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Second, he is an independent contractor rather than an employee and is likely not covered. If someone has a case to the contrary let me know.

Glad to hear from an attorney on this. This is exactly the point that I made on the Basketball board. Being an independent contractor is a whole different world than being an employee. They can choose not to use your services for any reason they so desire, including one that maybe be discrimminatory. My guess is this thing never goes to trail.

[grizwald]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

As an attorney, I can tell you you are wrong about just about all of this.

I wasn't posting specifically about this case. I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't have a clue about how the specifics of this case will be handled by a judge and jury.

My point was employers are not free to set any arbitrary standard they wish. Am I wrong about that? I can think of a whole lot of arbitrary standards from the old days that aren't around anymore (hopefully, in most places, but I'm sure they exist in others).

I was commenting specifically on that point, in response to someone else.

As far as the contractor status goes, I'm sure that does change things. Not being an official, I wasn't aware of that important point. It will probably entirely boil down to the language in the contract won't it?

I was aware in a lawsuit you are going to be dealing specifically with the individual(s) who brought suit. Forgive me, poor choice of words on that on.

Go reread my post looking at my comments more generally, rather than the specifics here. Am I still wrong? Other than the last part. Granted I probably should have left out the part about "disability being on the list", because it does make it seem like I'm saying this qualifies. But I wasn't trying to say that. With that comment I was only saying that this type situation could possibly be one that might get looked at, since employment rights for the disabled are protected to some degree. You seem to think his disabilty isn't severe enough to qualify. Point taken, I don't know.

I was only trying to say that generally employers cannot arbitrarilly fire (or not hire) people for reasons such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, etc...

As far as his specific case is concerned, I don't doubt you are correct. You don't even have an employer-employee relationship here.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by grizwald

I was only trying to say that generally employers cannot arbitrarilly fire (or not hire) people for reasons such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, etc...

Sure they can. It's done all the time. Proving they fired or didn't hire for those reasons is the difficult part.

[grizwald]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sure they can. It's done all the time. Proving they fired or didn't hire for those reasons is the difficult part.

Point taken, the law doesn't allow it - but it happens and one would have to prove it to a degree.