Tucker given notice of intent to terminate

Submitted by evenyoubrutus on September 18th, 2023 at 3:54 PM
https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1703858803760857281?t=po19tJBy6r-WsPrf0Fpzag&s=19

[ED: I changed the title. This doesn't make him officially-officially fired; it's part of the process for firing him for cause. As expected, his admission that he [redacted] with a school vendor was cause enough. But don't worry--he's still super-duper fired.]

MGoBoard
Football

UM85

September 18th, 2023 at 6:07 PM ^

I understand these types of things are highly complicated but I'm confused:

1. According to the story published by USA Today earlier this month, Tucker admitted to the behavior that led to his firing during an interview in late March 2023.

2.  An outside investigator hired by Michigan State recommended the school hold a hearing after completing her investigation in late July.  Tucker is allowed to continue to coach the team.  Yet once the media prints the story, with no new information being divulged, he was suspended without pay.

3. There is a process that should be followed to protect all parties (see the Duke lacrosse story as a good reason for this).  MSU has such a process which includes a formal hearing. What is the point in having a formal hearing on October 5th - 6th if you're advising the accused in advance that you're planning to fire him regardless of the outcome of said hearing? 

Again, these matters are very tricky but I just don't get this.

 

Joined: 10/24/2017

MGoPoints: 10302

Hensons Mobile…

September 18th, 2023 at 6:51 PM ^

It's fairly straightforward.

1) "Tucker admitted to the behavior that led to his firing during an interview in late March 2023."

Yes, to the independent investigator in the middle of her investigation. It went into her notes at that point.

2) "Yet once the media prints the story, with no new information being divulged, he was suspended without pay."

Michigan State maintains that, per their internal policies based on best practices, no one from MSU outside of the investigative office knew the details of the case until USA Today published the article. A lie? Perhaps. But it's their public position on the matter. So he was suspended without pay as soon as they learned the details of the case.

3) "What is the point in having a formal hearing on October 5th - 6th if you're advising the accused in advance that you're planning to fire him regardless of the outcome of said hearing?"

This is a little less straightforward for me, but still not too confusing.

He hasn't been fired yet. He still has a chance to respond to MSU's notice of their intent to terminate his contract. In theory, he could get them to reverse course. Obviously that's not going to happen.

So once he's fired for cause--which is all based on his own admissions--the hearing will continue to determine if he is guilty of violating the school's RVSM policy. He's not being fired for violating the RVSM policy, he's being fired for violating the moral turpitude clause in his contract, pretty much stemming from him engaging in his acknowledged inappropriate behavior with a school vendor.

My guess is that MSU is under some legal obligation to follow through on all Title IX complaints regardless of the standing of the student or employee involved. And (just in case Mel Tucker is reading this), even though this is technically not a Title IX complaint, I still wouldn't be surprised if MSU's policies require they see the case through. If nothing else, from a PR perspective, why wouldn't they?

Joined: 09/12/2019

MGoPoints: 49530

Hensons Mobile…

September 19th, 2023 at 9:18 AM ^

I get you're just going for a cute joke but my guy listed three separate items and only the third one, where I said it was less straightforward, took multiple paragraphs.

But here's the tl;dr version:

  • Mel admitted to a romantic relationship with a woman he'd been hiring to come to campus.
  • MSU claims, per their policies, they only found out before the end of the hearing because of the article.
  • Now that they know, they're canning his butt for violating a morality clause in his contract.
  • They still are going to hold the hearing because the RVSM complaint doesn't just go away. They see it through.

Joined: 09/12/2019

MGoPoints: 49530

grumbler

September 19th, 2023 at 5:29 PM ^

Mel admitted to a romantic relationship with a woman he'd been hiring to come to campus.

Nothing illegal here, nor anything displaying moral turpitude.

 

MSU claims, per their policies, they only found out before the end of the hearing because of the article.

Somewhat possible, but not relevant.  "MSU" is not a person.  A person can claim that they did not know about an investigation, but an entire institution cannot.

Now that they know, they're canning his butt for violating a morality clause in his contract.

There is no "morality clause" in his contract. No contract in which one of the parties could unilaterally decide what "morality" is and void the contract on that basis would be enforcible.  MSU is much more likely to be trying to can him for cause because they want out of the contract.  

They still are going to hold the hearing because the RVSM complaint doesn't just go away. They see it through.

It's not at all clear that this is an RVSM complaint in accordance with the school's policies https://civilrights.msu.edu/policies/relationship-violence-and-sexual-misconduct-and-title-ix-policy.html#SexualHarassment

We don't know enough to judge exactly what happened and what the complaint is.  If there is, indeed, something in it that makes the school liable for Tucker's actions (i.e it is a tort), THEN they can fire him for cause.   

Burt nothing is straightforward in the absence of actual evidence.

Joined: 08/17/2011

MGoPoints: 14112

Hensons Mobile…

September 20th, 2023 at 2:36 PM ^

"Nothing illegal here"

Who are you talking to? Total non sequitur.

 

" 'MSU' is not a person.  A person can claim that they did not know about an investigation, but an entire institution cannot."

Okay, MSU administration. I think literally everyone knew what I meant but fine, you really got me there. MSU administration is also not a person, so I will further clarify by saying the AD and everyone in the athletic department, the BoT, the interim-president, the president's office, the provost, the provost's office, the history department, the journalism school, and the Dairy Store.

 

"There is no "morality clause" in his contract."

Again, everyone knows what I meant. Sorry I didn't FOIA his contract to get the official language before posting. I got tired of writing moral turpitude.

 

"No contract in which one of the parties could unilaterally decide what "morality" is and void the contract on that basis would be enforcible."

Really? Even though many contracts have such a clause it has never held up in court once? Well, I don't study case law so I can't prove you wrong but it doesn't even matter because all that's at issue here is that is the position MSU (excuse me, MSU's General Counsel) took in their notice of intent to fire him. So take it up with them.

 

"MSU is much more likely to be trying to can him for cause because they want out of the contract."

Of course they want out of the contract. That's why they're firing him for cause. It would be really bizarre to fire someone for cause if you don't want out of the contract.

I have a guess at what you actually meant, but I'm not going to bother addressing because if I'm right it's completely irrelevant anyway. MSU gave their reasons in writing, which is all I am pointing out.

 

"It's not at all clear that this is an RVSM complaint in accordance with the school's policies"

I mean, it's an RVSM complaint. It was filed and investigated and going to a hearing. In what world is it not an RVSM complaint? It exists, it is there. It's not an ice cream cone, it's an RVSM complaint. If you are saying that it was improper for MSU (sorry, MSU's Office of Civil Rights) to investigate, take it up with MSU. Mel did, and he lost that battle with them already.

 

"We don't know enough to judge exactly what happened and what the complaint is."

Well, we actually do (especially what the complaint is, I mean it was kind of in the news, maybe you missed it), but that's not what we were discussing in this particular part of the thread so who cares?

 

"If there is, indeed, something in it that makes the school liable for Tucker's actions (i.e it is a tort), THEN they can fire him for cause."

They're actually doing it. Like, they started that process. That was the whole thing with the notice of intent to fire for cause thing with the words and stuff. That's all we're talking about. We're not talking about who would win in a court of law if Mel sues.

Joined: 09/12/2019

MGoPoints: 49530

ST3

September 18th, 2023 at 9:45 PM ^

The media printing the story activated the moral terpitude clause. If the event was kept private, there is no public damage to MSU’s reputation by definition. His grounds for suing MSU depends on him proving the university violated his privacy rights by releasing the information in an attempt to fire him for cause. If they released the information, they self inflicted the moral turpitude. I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t sleep at a holiday inn.

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52559

Amazinblu

September 18th, 2023 at 4:30 PM ^

The happiest member of the Spartan family.   And, just think - it all began with him - staying on a bit longer "formally" - so he could collect a few million bonus dollars that resulted in Tucker being hired.

He's playing checkers while the Spartan AD and BOD are playing... hmmm.. Go Fish or Solitaire.

Joined: 01/22/2010

MGoPoints: 41400

alum96

September 19th, 2023 at 2:33 PM ^

Mel won. He suckered a university to give him generational money.  Go throw that shit into a 5%+ money market and $10M gets you $500K a year 'income' to do nothing the rest of his life without touching principal.  I am assuming he has more than that even after attorneyes as he has previous jobs and made decent cash there as well as Colorado.  But his big score was the barnum and bailey heist of MSU Ishbia and the other guy. 

Joined: 04/28/2012

MGoPoints: 82517

bdneely4

September 18th, 2023 at 3:57 PM ^

what an idiot!  all he had to do was keep losing games and clap his hands and he would be $95 million richer. Instead, he did other things with his hands.

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 13935