Big Ten firing
 

Hello all....Basketball official dipping into the football side of the house.

Just wondering what the thoughts were over here concerning this:

At least get your link correct:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/campu...-bigten18.html

Okey dokey Theisey....i fixed it.

I don't know guys, We have all worked with coaches that didn't have half a brain. No one said they couldn't be out there. :D

1. The conference knowingly let him work, (5 seasons was it?) without questioning his ability, and it would seem without complaints.
2. The Orange Bowl assignment would appear to show that they were happy with his work.
3. The idiot at the conference that told him he was fired because "He didn't have two eyes" left the conference WIDE open for an ADA lawsuit.
I think he will win, get a lot of money, and there will be a firing at the conference level.

I concur - except that surely someone at the conference level will realize that they have no case and will settle.

I don't know this is what happened, but hypothetically speaking....what would you guys who are coming out so strong against the conference say if you find out that the ref in question had to undergo a physical exam each year and each year managed to get the vision test scores configured such that his impairment was not officially discovered? Would that change your minds?

Obviously we don't know the whole story but the information we do know is clear and unambigous. Based on actual performance on the field for the last five years this guy can flat out do the job at one of the highest levels in our sport.

No "physical" or "vision test" can change that fact. Maybe we'll find out down the road that something else happened here, but based on the information that's all over the national media, this was a decision that probably will be regreted for a long time.

If any official can do their job effective enough to get a post-season game as he did, their was wrong doing. If you can't perform your job due to your disability and your employer made a position change to help but still could not do it, then they could offer a supervisor/training position. But to come out and make statements that was in the article, someone needs to be held accountable.

Officials at this level must make the grade, apparently nothing was said in the article that had him down graded with his work but was appointed a respectable post-season game, someone at the conference made a BIG BOO BOO! I wish the guy well and hope things work out so he can get back on the field.

Unfortunately, this has been mad so public that every call made or not made will be even magnified greater. I am sure the $ he wins or settles would not equal the time that he has doing what he loves, it would not me.

None of us have any sort of inalienable right to do whatever we want. If an employer chooses to set standards (and they can be rather arbitrary) and that limits some folks from being eligible for the position then so be it. So far, all any of us apparently knows is the little that has been in the media ( a great source for factual info, right??).


Just because someone has been getting by for 5 years does not mean that once his disqualifying situation becomes known he cannot be let go.

As for him not being offered a job as an observer/replay official/ etc etc etc, I don't think we know yet what was or was not offered or why. If he was not offered any such job, that suggests to me that there is more to the story.

And as for the lawsuit, I suspect his actual damages are so trivial in the grand scheme that the Big Ten might pay him off just to have the situation go away, especially if they have not been doing their job over the years of verifying physical status.

[QUOTE=TXMike]


Just because someone has been getting by for 5 years does not mean that once his disqualifying situation becomes known he cannot be let go.

QUOTE]


I don't think getting a major bowl assignment is "getting by." I bet Mike would love to "get by" by being assigned the Orange Bowl.

I think this guy will win his suit, embarass the Big Ten and prove wrong all those who have prejudices against handicapped people.

[QUOTE=Forksref]A person with a disability has so much more drive than one who doesn't in my book. I have met some of the most courages people and just am at awe how they continue to push themselves with so much against them.

1. Lady at my university, she had no arms, I could not help but to miss my class that day just to observe how she just got through the day. She done everything with her mouth and feet/toes. I was amazed to watch her hang her purse on her shoulder by using her lower extremities. The most facinating thing was when she left campus, she drove!

2. An avid outdoorsman loses his mobility in his right arms, continues to hunt with a bow, fish, and hunts with a gun. The list could go on.....

Each one of us knows or has witnessed the strength and drive of someone who has a handicap, I wished I had half of their strength. If they can perform the job, then let them work to be an inspiration to all of us.

So long as no laws are broken in the process.

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.

May be not, but everybody does have a right to earn a living.

As far as a physical exam is concerned. If all we know is what is said in the article, it makes it relatively clear that the Big Ten directors, at least at some level, were aware of his disablility.

It depends on what you mean by "managed to get the vision test scores configured." If there was bribery, deliberate falsification, or violation of one of the terms of agreement between the official and the conference, then they have grounds to fire him, even though they previously thought he was doing a good job.

If, however, the official has done nothing wrong, the conference is toast on this one. Even if they caught it because they started doing physicals, the Americans with Disabilities Act protects this guy. They can say that full binocular vision is necessary to pass the physical, but their own performance reviews of the official show that it's not actually necessary to do the job - which means that any such vision requirement in the physical is illegal discrimination. I grant that we don't have all of the facts of the case, but barring something fairly damning, I'm pretty sure any competent lawyer will chew the conference up.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

[QUOTE=irefky]
I know a guy that was in a motorcycle accident and became paralyzed on the entire left side of his body. But he's all right.

HAHAHA. Get it?!? ALL right! Right not left. Right! Oh man, that's good.

Hey, I found a picture of that ref that got fired. Here it is - ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I do remember reading/hearing of a somewhat similar situation a year or two ago (may have been mentioned on this board) where a female basketball official with hearing impairment won (at least got back to work) a "right to work" case when the court ruled among other things that the "independent contractor" issue did not make the claims go away. I can't seem to find the case anywhere (and the web's a big place). Does anyone recollect that details of that case?

I think the case was settled before it actually got to a full trial.

Sounds like Mr Filson was offered other positions but turned them down.

From the Detroit Free Press -
LAWSUIT DISPUTE: Carr was named in a recent Chicago-area lawsuit of James Filson, who is suing the Big Ten for firing him.

The former Big Ten football official contends he was fired because it was discovered he suffered an accident in 2000, blinding him in one eye. Various media accounts have suggested that Carr was informed of Filson's handicap by a media member and asked Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to dismiss the official.

Carr said Tuesday that wasn't accurate. He said he was called about the situation by a different Big Ten official, and Carr felt it was his responsibility to pass the information on to Delany.

"I made it clear to Jim that I had no opinion and that I was not calling with any motivation other than to provide him with that information," Carr said. "What he chose to do with it was his decision. ... Given the same circumstances, I would make the same call - in spite of the fact that it has been portrayed I cost him his job or that I was trying to get him fired. There is nothing further from the truth."

Delany said Tuesday that Filson was offered other conference officiating jobs but turned them down.