Big Ten firing

[Raymond]

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

Just wondering what the thoughts were over here concerning this:

Originally Posted by jeffpea

check out this story in today's Chicago Sun-Times:

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

I've actually worked a college basketball game with him 2 yrs ago. Didn't know about his visual impairment until I read the article. I can certainly understand why the Big 10 did what it did; but I can also understand his perspective as well.....

What are your thoughts?

[Theisey]

At least get your link correct:

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Theisey

At least get your link correct:

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

Okey dokey Theisey....i fixed it.

[Jim S]

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.

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.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by Jim S

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.

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.

[TXMike]

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?

[RoyGardner]

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.

[irefky]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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?

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.

[TXMike]

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.

[Forksref]

[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.

[irefky]

[QUOTE=Forksref]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[grizwald]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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 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.

Originally Posted by TXMike

None of us have any sort of inalienable right to do whatever we want.

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.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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?

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.

[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.