https://swimswam.com/cals-investigation-into-teri-mckeever-passes-six-month-expectation/

Hmmm interesting

Related to the topic of allegations against Terri Mckeever is this article about how coaches are more frequently being challenged for tactics and behaviors that might cross the line from being tough to being abusive: https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-basketball-california-mens-2ade47b37d4fa1d5b3d3042650418830

Interestingly, the rowing coach featured in the story for complaints of abusive behavior at U Penn and UCSD previously coached at Cal, where some former rowers defend him in the article. The article states that it seems that athletes are now more emboldened than previously to challenge coaching behaviors that they see as harmful, and then the article transitions into a discussion of Terri Mckeever, finally ending with this passage quoting Tara Vanderveer:

"Sometimes, VanDerveer said, coaches will say or do something 10 times without drawing any complaints, but the 11th occasion might be considered by someone to be "over the line."

"I think it's always been challenging," she said, "but maybe now with social media, the portal, I think things are even more challenging for coaches.""

OdontoBear66 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I am not saying that is not how it happened but will point out that conversation is how it was summarized by a reporter as related by pissed off parents. None of us yet know whether or not jk said no such thing and immediately called hr the moment the door closed. Let's wait for the report.

---

I appreciate your patience and need for a comprehensive result, but wait we have. C'mon this is a stain on our University and was brought to everyone's attention via a newspaper report probably over six months ago with follow up reports about once a month since. So that being the case the admin has known about this way, way longer than we have. And to date......Nothing.

The stain from this needs to be cleared and should have been front burner. Yes, competently done; but also in a timely fashion. Everything I have read on McKeever including the letters from fellow coaches does not smell good at all. And until she is completely cleared the bad light shines on Cal while she is protected. Innocent until adjudicated adequately, but adjudicated in reasonable time as in the interim, Cal does not look good.

---

Odonto and my fellow bears. I too read dug out and read the newspaper reports that quote all the students and parents, Those reports are the closest sources we all have, to date, on what happened, and there were enough quotes and sufficient detail in the reports to trigger the alarm that everyone here, myself included, seems to share. Maybe every last thing reported is true. Maybe not, Maybe there is more to it. Maybe not. But everyone needs to understand UC has a required administratice procedure to determine all that, and that procedure and its findings are reviewable by a local court. There's a very detailed procedure for tenured emloyees, and another for non-tenured employees.

Coach Teri, as a state employee, has rights (under the Constitutions of California and the U.S.)
to due process in any proceeding or decision made to terminate her employment. These include the right to notice of any UC accusations against her, and the right to respond to those before any decision is implemented. I believe there is a right to a subsequent hearing, and to call and cross-examine witnesses.

Munger Tolles does not conduct that procedure. An entity like UC, when assused of unlawful abuse or harrasment on the basis of sex (or for some other prohibited reason), is legally required, at the outset, to investigate the accusations. UC has employed the outside law firm of Munger Tolles to do so here, rather than have its own UC employee/lawyers do so UC did so in order to avoid the charges of bias-in-the-investigation that so many here seem so eager to make in any event. All big entities do this.

Munger Tolles' failure to complete its report within someone's expectation of six months - assuming that is the case here - would mean absolutely nothing. This investigation going beyond six months is entirely unremarkable given all the witnesses identified, all the incidents alleged over all those years, and the seriousness of the accusations. Legal investigations take time. Like Mueller's. Is it so difficult to accept that the investigators here are being thorough and following leads?

Complaining about not yet seeing anything from the investigation is further pointless because I don't think any of us on this board ever will. UC employees have privacy rights too, and I don't think Cal has any obligation or reason to disclose it.

Companing about the investigation is just a talking point to smear Cal, Or more precisely, an attempt to gin up social media pressure to force a result outside of and in disregard of the explicit legal process meant to adjudicate the issue. I don't think this is a good look for so many Cal folks to be baying for this coach's head in disregard for that process.

ktownbear83 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I am not saying that is not how it happened but will point out that conversation is how it was summarized by a reporter as related by pissed off parents. None of us yet know whether or not jk said no such thing and immediately called hr the moment the door closed. Let's wait for the report.

---

I appreciate your patience and need for a comprehensive result, but wait we have. C'mon this is a stain on our University and was brought to everyone's attention via a newspaper report probably over six months ago with follow up reports about once a month since. So that being the case the admin has known about this way, way longer than we have. And to date......Nothing.

The stain from this needs to be cleared and should have been front burner. Yes, competently done; but also in a timely fashion. Everything I have read on McKeever including the letters from fellow coaches does not smell good at all. And until she is completely cleared the bad light shines on Cal while she is protected. Innocent until adjudicated adequately, but adjudicated in reasonable time as in the interim, Cal does not look good.

---

Odonto and my fellow bears. I too read dug out and read the newspaper reports that quote all the students and parents, Those reports are the closest sources we all have, to date, on what happened, and there were enough quotes and sufficient detail in the reports to trigger the alarm that everyone here, myself included, seems to share. Maybe every last thing reported is true. Maybe not, Maybe there is more to it. Maybe not. But everyone needs to understand UC has a required administratice procedure to determine all that, and that procedure and its findings are reviewable by a local court. There's a very detailed procedure for tenured emloyees, and another for non-tenured employees.

Coach Teri, as a state employee, has rights (under the Constitutions of California and the U.S.)
to due process in any proceeding or decision made to terminate her employment. These include the right to notice of any UC accusations against her, and the right to respond to those before any decision is implemented. I believe there is a right to a subsequent hearing, and to call and cross-examine witnesses.

Munger Tolles does not conduct that procedure. An entity like UC, when assused of unlawful abuse or harrasment on the basis of sex (or for some other prohibited reason), is legally required, at the outset, to investigate the accusations. UC has employed the outside law firm of Munger Tolles to do so here, rather than have its own UC employee/lawyers do so UC did so in order to avoid the charges of bias-in-the-investigation that so many here seem so eager to make in any event. All big entities do this.

Munger Tolles' failure to complete its report within someone's expectation of six months - assuming that is the case here - would mean absolutely nothing. This investigation going beyond six months is entirely unremarkable given all the witnesses identified, all the incidents alleged over all those years, and the seriousness of the accusations. Legal investigations take time. Like Mueller's. Is it so difficult to accept that the investigators here are being thorough and following leads?

Complaining about not yet seeing anything from the investigation is further pointless because I don't think any of us on this board ever will. UC employees have privacy rights too, and I don't think Cal has any obligation or reason to disclose it.

Companing about the investigation is just a talking point to smear Cal, Or more precisely, an attempt to gin up social media pressure to force a result outside of and in disregard of the explicit legal process meant to adjudicate the issue. I don't think this is a good look for so many Cal folks to be baying for this coach's head in disregard for that process.

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

ktownbear83 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I am not saying that is not how it happened but will point out that conversation is how it was summarized by a reporter as related by pissed off parents. None of us yet know whether or not jk said no such thing and immediately called hr the moment the door closed. Let's wait for the report.

---

I appreciate your patience and need for a comprehensive result, but wait we have. C'mon this is a stain on our University and was brought to everyone's attention via a newspaper report probably over six months ago with follow up reports about once a month since. So that being the case the admin has known about this way, way longer than we have. And to date......Nothing.

The stain from this needs to be cleared and should have been front burner. Yes, competently done; but also in a timely fashion. Everything I have read on McKeever including the letters from fellow coaches does not smell good at all. And until she is completely cleared the bad light shines on Cal while she is protected. Innocent until adjudicated adequately, but adjudicated in reasonable time as in the interim, Cal does not look good.

---

Odonto and my fellow bears. I too read dug out and read the newspaper reports that quote all the students and parents, Those reports are the closest sources we all have, to date, on what happened, and there were enough quotes and sufficient detail in the reports to trigger the alarm that everyone here, myself included, seems to share. Maybe every last thing reported is true. Maybe not, Maybe there is more to it. Maybe not. But everyone needs to understand UC has a required administratice procedure to determine all that, and that procedure and its findings are reviewable by a local court. There's a very detailed procedure for tenured emloyees, and another for non-tenured employees.

Coach Teri, as a state employee, has rights (under the Constitutions of California and the U.S.)
to due process in any proceeding or decision made to terminate her employment. These include the right to notice of any UC accusations against her, and the right to respond to those before any decision is implemented. I believe there is a right to a subsequent hearing, and to call and cross-examine witnesses.

Munger Tolles does not conduct that procedure. An entity like UC, when assused of unlawful abuse or harrasment on the basis of sex (or for some other prohibited reason), is legally required, at the outset, to investigate the accusations. UC has employed the outside law firm of Munger Tolles to do so here, rather than have its own UC employee/lawyers do so UC did so in order to avoid the charges of bias-in-the-investigation that so many here seem so eager to make in any event. All big entities do this.

Munger Tolles' failure to complete its report within someone's expectation of six months - assuming that is the case here - would mean absolutely nothing. This investigation going beyond six months is entirely unremarkable given all the witnesses identified, all the incidents alleged over all those years, and the seriousness of the accusations. Legal investigations take time. Like Mueller's. Is it so difficult to accept that the investigators here are being thorough and following leads?

Complaining about not yet seeing anything from the investigation is further pointless because I don't think any of us on this board ever will. UC employees have privacy rights too, and I don't think Cal has any obligation or reason to disclose it.

Companing about the investigation is just a talking point to smear Cal, Or more precisely, an attempt to gin up social media pressure to force a result outside of and in disregard of the explicit legal process meant to adjudicate the issue. I don't think this is a good look for so many Cal folks to be baying for this coach's head in disregard for that process.

---

What's not a good look is Cal taking this long to conduct a thorough investigation. If it's deeper than McKeever, and implicates Knowlton, Christ and others, they still should know by know whether McKeever should be terminated with cause, as the investigation into others continues, and should criminal charges be warranted, that can come too, later. That would make the press go away, and would appease the fan base. This timeline is ridiculous.

Bring it off topic. Please

ktownbear83

You respond to me about process. No-one has suggested that due process not be given McKeever. But what I care about is the effect it has on Cal's reputation, and its effects on our swimming program.

There is so much about our legal system that I dislike and I guess this amplifies it. This should have been done months ago. I have an opinion about the result, but that is just an opinion. If you wish to stand on "process" I am saying for God's sake get on with it. And all the BS about that's the way it is is ridiculous. Give the lady process, but get moving. If not, fire her arse, so Cal can move on.

bearsandgiants said:

---

ktownbear83 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

I am not saying that is not how it happened but will point out that conversation is how it was summarized by a reporter as related by pissed off parents. None of us yet know whether or not jk said no such thing and immediately called hr the moment the door closed. Let's wait for the report.

---

I appreciate your patience and need for a comprehensive result, but wait we have. C'mon this is a stain on our University and was brought to everyone's attention via a newspaper report probably over six months ago with follow up reports about once a month since. So that being the case the admin has known about this way, way longer than we have. And to date......Nothing.

The stain from this needs to be cleared and should have been front burner. Yes, competently done; but also in a timely fashion. Everything I have read on McKeever including the letters from fellow coaches does not smell good at all. And until she is completely cleared the bad light shines on Cal while she is protected. Innocent until adjudicated adequately, but adjudicated in reasonable time as in the interim, Cal does not look good.

---

Odonto and my fellow bears. I too read dug out and read the newspaper reports that quote all the students and parents, Those reports are the closest sources we all have, to date, on what happened, and there were enough quotes and sufficient detail in the reports to trigger the alarm that everyone here, myself included, seems to share. Maybe every last thing reported is true. Maybe not, Maybe there is more to it. Maybe not. But everyone needs to understand UC has a required administratice procedure to determine all that, and that procedure and its findings are reviewable by a local court. There's a very detailed procedure for tenured emloyees, and another for non-tenured employees.

Coach Teri, as a state employee, has rights (under the Constitutions of California and the U.S.)
to due process in any proceeding or decision made to terminate her employment. These include the right to notice of any UC accusations against her, and the right to respond to those before any decision is implemented. I believe there is a right to a subsequent hearing, and to call and cross-examine witnesses.

Munger Tolles does not conduct that procedure. An entity like UC, when assused of unlawful abuse or harrasment on the basis of sex (or for some other prohibited reason), is legally required, at the outset, to investigate the accusations. UC has employed the outside law firm of Munger Tolles to do so here, rather than have its own UC employee/lawyers do so UC did so in order to avoid the charges of bias-in-the-investigation that so many here seem so eager to make in any event. All big entities do this.

Munger Tolles' failure to complete its report within someone's expectation of six months - assuming that is the case here - would mean absolutely nothing. This investigation going beyond six months is entirely unremarkable given all the witnesses identified, all the incidents alleged over all those years, and the seriousness of the accusations. Legal investigations take time. Like Mueller's. Is it so difficult to accept that the investigators here are being thorough and following leads?

Complaining about not yet seeing anything from the investigation is further pointless because I don't think any of us on this board ever will. UC employees have privacy rights too, and I don't think Cal has any obligation or reason to disclose it.

Companing about the investigation is just a talking point to smear Cal, Or more precisely, an attempt to gin up social media pressure to force a result outside of and in disregard of the explicit legal process meant to adjudicate the issue. I don't think this is a good look for so many Cal folks to be baying for this coach's head in disregard for that process.

---

What's not a good look is Cal taking this long to conduct a thorough investigation. If it's deeper than McKeever, and implicates Knowlton, Christ and others, they still should know by know whether McKeever should be terminated with cause, as the investigation into others continues, and should criminal charges be warranted, that can come too, later. That would make the press go away, and would appease the fan base. This timeline is ridiculous.

---

Didn't you read the previous post? The investigation is not being conducted by Cal. And McKeever has employee rights
This will take the time needed. .

Who cares? Nobody.

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

22 years ago Bobby Knight was fired from Indiana. It did not take a seven month investigation.

calumnus said:

---

22 years ago Bobby Knight was fired from Indiana. It did not take a seven month investigation.

---

The state of the law has changed quite a bit in there last 22 years. Also, Bobby Knight was overt in his antics….everybody knew he had a screw loose and uncontrolled anger issues. The allegations against Teri weren't widely known to the public.

juarez, when i wuz around the athletic department on a regular basis back in the cal's monster class era, i can assure you that there were multiple coaches in multiple sports that knew mckeever was abusing her swimmers & that she was protected by simon-o'neil

the knowlton defense (who gave her an extended & higher paying contract after the "news" broke) that nobody knew nothing & that a lengthy investigation is necessary is not gonna fly in a court of law when the lawsuits start flying

this thread is very important as it documents the best opportunity for chancellor christ (who is hearing it from the donors re: the incompetence of her athletic director she extended to 2029 after he conned her re: the northwestern ad interviewing process) to terminate that contract for employment violation reasons

vote for andrew mcgraw for athletic director#

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

22 years ago Bobby Knight was fired from Indiana. It did not take a seven month investigation.

---

….Bobby Knight was overt in his antics….everybody knew he had a screw loose….

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Sure, she could be paid out according to her contract and still sue in Alameda County Courts, the University could counter-sue and then the university could bring as witnesses the 22 young women who made complaints of abuse and twice as many who corroborated including all of the African American swimmers who were racially harassed, including McKeever's use of the N word and let the Alameda County jury decide.

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

I made this very point earlier in the thread. Just because we can fire her and pay her out doesn't mean she can't sue on top of that. It's not a red herring, but the (justified) outrage people feel doesn't mean the U shouldn't proceed in a wise manner.

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Sure, she could be paid out according to her contract and still sue in Alameda County Courts, the University could counter-sue and then the university could bring as witnesses the 22 young women who made complaints of abuse and twice as many who corroborated including all of the African American swimmers who were racially harassed, including McKeever's use of the N word and let the Alameda County jury decide.

---

So, are you suggesting the U should just assume a lawsuit is inevitable, pull off the band-aid and fire her and let the chips fall where they may?

Shocky1 said:

---

juarez, when i wuz around the athletic department on a regular basis back in the cal's monster class era, i can assure you that there were multiple coaches in multiple sports that knew mckeever was abusing her swimmers & that she was protected by simon-o'neil

the knowlton defense (who gave her an extended & higher paying contract after the "news" broke) that nobody knew nothing & that a lengthy investigation is necessary is not gonna fly in a court of law when the lawsuits start flying

this thread is very important as it documents the best opportunity for chancellor christ (who is hearing it from the donors re: the incompetence of her athletic director she extended to 2029 after he conned her re: the northwestern ad interviewing process) to terminate that contract for employment violation reasons

vote for andrew mcgraw for athletic director#

---

Maybe an insider like you heard these rumors, but I've followed Cal Aquatics for over 40 years and aside from rumors about Rich Corso, who WAS fired, I never heard anything and was surprised by the Teri allegations. That's what I meant by the false equivalency between her and Knight. The public knew Knight was unhinged. If these allegations are true, it seems clear that there has been malpractice within the AD.

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Sure, she could be paid out according to her contract and still sue in Alameda County Courts, the University could counter-sue and then the university could bring as witnesses the 22 young women who made complaints of abuse and twice as many who corroborated including all of the African American swimmers who were racially harassed, including McKeever's use of the N word and let the Alameda County jury decide.

---

So, are you suggesting the U should just assume a lawsuit is inevitable, pull off the band-aid and fire her and let the chips fall where they may?

---

Hell yes. I don't know if "inevitable" but if the lawsuit is between the university and McKeever and the university is seen as backing the swimmers, it will be a lot better than the current path which will leave the university open to a lawsuit from the swimmers.

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Sure, she could be paid out according to her contract and still sue in Alameda County Courts, the University could counter-sue and then the university could bring as witnesses the 22 young women who made complaints of abuse and twice as many who corroborated including all of the African American swimmers who were racially harassed, including McKeever's use of the N word and let the Alameda County jury decide.

---

So, are you suggesting the U should just assume a lawsuit is inevitable, pull off the band-aid and fire her and let the chips fall where they may?

---

Hell yes. I don't know if "inevitable" but if the lawsuit is between the university and McKeever and the university is seen as backing the swimmers, it will be a lot better than the current path which will leave the university open to a lawsuit from the swimmers.

---

Good point. Maybe the report is being delayed while the U considers this very option. What a ****ty situation.

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Sure, she could be paid out according to her contract and still sue in Alameda County Courts, the University could counter-sue and then the university could bring as witnesses the 22 young women who made complaints of abuse and twice as many who corroborated including all of the African American swimmers who were racially harassed, including McKeever's use of the N word and let the Alameda County jury decide.

---

So, are you suggesting the U should just assume a lawsuit is inevitable, pull off the band-aid and fire her and let the chips fall where they may?

---

Hell yes. I don't know if "inevitable" but if the lawsuit is between the university and McKeever and the university is seen as backing the swimmers, it will be a lot better than the current path which will leave the university open to a lawsuit from the swimmers.

---

Good point. Maybe the report is being delayed while the U considers this very option. What a ****ty situation.

---

Given the litigious nature of our culture, it would seem lawsuits will fly from both Teri and the swimmers regardless of the next steps. UGH

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

---

---

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Dont care what her attorney is claiming.
Dont care what you keep repeating because you're only looking at the "bark" on the tree and not the "forest".

She's gonna sue the University anyway . . . and she'll lose when 22 Cal Women's Swimmers give testimony.
Cal should have torn off the Band-Aid awhile ago.

calumnus said:

---

Hell yes. I don't know if "inevitable" but if the lawsuit is between the university and McKeever and the university is seen as backing the swimmers, it will be a lot better than the current path which will leave the university open to a lawsuit from the swimmers.

---

This ^^^

DiabloWags said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

---

---

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Dont care what her attorney is claiming.
Dont care what you keep repeating because you're only looking at the "bark" on the tree and not the "forest".

She's gonna sue the University anyway . . . and she'll lose when 22 Cal Women's Swimmers give testimony.
Cal should have torn off the Band-Aid awhile ago.

---

I think it reasonable for some to say Cal should fire her NOW, before completion of the investigations and administrative processes, because her lawsuit is inevitable. I disagree with that course of action, but that's something reasonable minds can disagree about, weighing the potential costs/benefits/risks. Is the damage to Cal's swimming program made worse by not firing her and do those costs outweigh the litigation risk? Tough call - as Juarez said a no win situation.

I think its foolhardy to base your position on the view that McKeever will inevitably lose. Litigation doesn't work that way - there is not a single qualified trial lawyer that will tell you there is 100% certainty in the outcome of a contested case. If there are 22 swimmers who testify against her, there will be 22 witnesses (including "experts") asserting she's a victim of discrimination and being treated differently than a male coach or the coach of male sports. And if Cal proceeds as you suggest, one of the things she'll point to is that Cal deviated from how its handled other similar cases (i.e., not taking action until the investigation was complete. Examples would be Yanni and the male soccer coach.

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

McKeever is not a normal state employee. Her employment is governed by her contract. She can be fired without cause as per her contract as coaches White, Theder, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes were all fired in football and Kutchen, Campanelli, Bozeman, Braun and Jones were fired in basketball. All were also state employees.

If the university is seeking to fire her for cause, that is a different story, but I doubt that is the case.

---

Bingo!

There are people posting here who havent bothered to read her contract. Its been posted in the original McKeever thread. Her contract clearly states that she waives her right to a Skelly hearing.

She is not the typical State employee.
Her employment is governed by her contract.

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Sure, she could be paid out according to her contract and still sue in Alameda County Courts, the University could counter-sue and then the university could bring as witnesses the 22 young women who made complaints of abuse and twice as many who corroborated including all of the African American swimmers who were racially harassed, including McKeever's use of the N word and let the Alameda County jury decide.

---

So, are you suggesting the U should just assume a lawsuit is inevitable, pull off the band-aid and fire her and let the chips fall where they may?

---

Hell yes. I don't know if "inevitable" but if the lawsuit is between the university and McKeever and the university is seen as backing the swimmers, it will be a lot better than the current path which will leave the university open to a lawsuit from the swimmers.

---

The university is probably already going to be sued by the swimmers, but firing her now does not help them in that case because they have already removed her from the situation. But firing her before the outside investigation is complete will undoubtedly hurt the university in a case brought by McKeever because they made up their minds before the independent investigator gave a report. And, if the independent investigator than takes her side, the university is really screwed.

I don't know why the investigation is taking so long, but I'd also say that isn't really on the university either. They don't want to be seen as rushing the independent investigator.

I absolutely can see drawing the conclusion that the reputational damage that is occurring needs to stop even if that means putting the university in more legal peril. That is a valid conclusion. But it must be done understanding that they will in fact be in probably much more legal peril by doing so.

I understand the impatience, but, honestly, what Cal is doing (or not doing) now isn't the problem. It is what they didn't do before that is the problem.

DiabloWags said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

---

---

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Dont care what her attorney is claiming.
Dont care what you keep repeating because you're only looking at the "bark" on the tree and not the "forest".

She's gonna sue the University anyway . . . and she'll lose when 22 Cal Women's Swimmers give testimony.
Cal should have torn off the Band-Aid awhile ago.

---

I largely agree with you. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I'm curious what happens when all these swimmers testify against her. Is her defense that she was working within the U's rules and therefore deflects blame onto the U? I'm not asking this to be disruptive or disrespectful....Obviously, that's really bad for Knowlton and his #2. I'm sincerely curious to know if that's a logical defense.

juarezbear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I've read her contract. Unfortunately, her employment is not governed solely by her contract.

---

---

People focusing only on her contract are ignoring the discrimination/harassment claims her attorney is informally asserting in anticipation of filing (and Cal is concerned about). Those claims are: (i) totally independent of her potential contract claims; and (ii) not foreclosed by anything in her contract. Cal could fire her without cause, pay her the full amount of her contract per its terms, and she could still sue.

To borrow a phrase, we can explain this (repeatedly), but we can't make you understand it.

---

Dont care what her attorney is claiming.
Dont care what you keep repeating because you're only looking at the "bark" on the tree and not the "forest".

She's gonna sue the University anyway . . . and she'll lose when 22 Cal Women's Swimmers give testimony.
Cal should have torn off the Band-Aid awhile ago.

---

I largely agree with you. I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I'm curious what happens when all these swimmers testify against her. Is her defense that she was working within the U's rules and therefore deflects blame onto the U? I'm not asking this to be disruptive or disrespectful....Obviously, that's really bad for Knowlton and his #2. I'm sincerely curious to know if that's a logical defense.

---

Yes, that is what her lawyer said publicly in his statements to the press so I am sure it is a preview of her defense. He is clearly trying to take down the university with her or more likely threatening to do so to get a settlement.

The university cannot be seen as trying to protect her and but that is what has happened.