Ursine said:

---

maxer said:

---

Male coaches, who are not abusing anyone must now be fired.

---

Good luck with that.

---

To be clear I didn't say that -- you're selectively quoting the quote I cut and pasted from McKeever's attorney.

3 DOZEN posts about McKeever's firing and not a single post from BearGoggles who spent hours here defending McKeever's right to due process after investigative reporter Scott Reid blew open this story.

Shocker.

tequila4kapp said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

maxer said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

Good and had to be done with so many confirmed complaints.....expect a lawsuit from McKeever and eventually a settlement which I don't think she deserves.

---

Her employment contract has been posted here on numerous occasions.

I dont see any kind of "settlement" regarding her firing for cause when her employment contract never required "cause" to be fired in the first place and in fact, was written with her waiving her right to a Skelly hearing. She has very little recourse, if any.

---

She's going to be suing claiming gender discrimination.

Quote:

---

Newkirk called the process leading to this decision "one of the most disturbing displays of double standards and enabling of gender bias directed at a female coach," citing Cal's handling of complaints against its women's soccer coach as one example of that double standard. He said McKeever will be filing a lawsuit against the university.

"The coaching profession is at a crossroads," Newkirk said. "The complaints made about Teri were largely the result of gendered differences in how she was judged as a female but also based on gendered evaluations of female athletes. The complaints were also the result of a lack of resources provided to help coaches manage the mental health challenges of athletes. Coaches are all at risk as they seek to walk the line of great coaching compared to what any disappointed athlete or parent can now claim is abuse."

"Teri will be filing suit to expose the manner in which gender has affected not only the evaluation of her coaching but harmed and continues to harm both female and male athletes," he added. "Female athletes, including those who complained, have been treated in a patronizing manner by this administration. Male athletes who need actual help with mental health are being ignored. Male coaches, who are not abusing anyone must now be fired. Teri is committed to finding the answer to this national problem that is destroying not only female coaches but coaching as a profession."

---

Rest of the article (including her lengthy statement) found here: https://swimswam.com/cal-fires-teri-mckeever-after-8-month-investigation-into-allegations-of-bullying/

---

Lol. Gender discrimination? I hope they have evidence of a relentless pursuit of mental health care on their students' behalf, else I hope Cal sues them for all legal fees and this gets tossed as far as the eye can see.

---

I'm about 100+ pages into reading the report. Through those pages I'd say the charges of racially motivated hostility are thin/nuanced. On the other hand the charges related to bullying, hostile environment and other charges are substantial. All she has to do is show male coaches who are "old school" but still employed and she'll arguably have a colorable claim. I suspect she'll be able to show that with relative ease. I predict Cal pays a settlement.

---

I think she'll have a hard time showing gender bias because she has to show that the university systematically treats coaches differently based on gender. Just because they fired her (a single case) and didn't fire a male coach (a single coach) who did similar things cannot prove bias. She is the plaintiff, the burder of proof is on her to prove bias. She has to show more than one case. I don't think Berkeley is retaining male coaches that have done what she did and I doubt they have plans to retain any coach as such. The University had an obligation to investigate and take action based on the findings because there had been complaints. If there are not complaints about a male coach doing the same thing, then the disparity would not be based on gender but rather a difference in circumstances that were independent of gender.

wifeisafurd said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

Good and had to be done with so many confirmed complaints.....expect a lawsuit from McKeever and eventually a settlement which I don't think she deserves.

---

And what about the AD who ignored the complaints?

---

This responds to several comments about prospective litigation, since it is clear there are omments by those that have not read the report.

Number 1 litigant is Coach McKeever, who submitted a formal, written complaint to OPHD on November 28, 2022, asserting that she has been wrongfully accused of bullying and abuse and that the University's investigation of her conduct constitutes gender discrimination and reflected gender- biased views. Expect to see more of that when the coach sues Cal.

There may be certain athletes that sue, though it is hard to get a handle on whom and how many. Part of the problem in reading the report is the massive deletions when it comes to the investigators' conclusions regarding disputed allegations. There were findings on former athletes who were subject to abuse, before polices were implemented. One wonders in statute of limitations have expired since when events took place are generally deleted as well, but at least your told the investigators generally sided with those former athletes making allegations.

You would think that on a lot of the allegations, the investigators sided with the accusers given that McKeever was terminated. That said, the discussions seem to be going McKeever's way in certain accusations, but you never know because of the massive deletions.

As for AD staff and or other coaches:

"MTO was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever. MTO did, however, gather information related to Coach McKeever's defenses and responses to the allegations in order to evaluate them, and among Coach McKeever's defenses, she alleged that the University knew of her coaching methods and of prior complaints and had not found her conduct problematic or violative of any policies. Although MTO gathered all relevant information that witnesses provided or gave MTO access to, MTO did not make factual findings or policy determinations on these issues because they were outside of the scope of the investigation.

MTO also was not retained to investigate, and did not investigate, other coaches and their methods of coaching. MTO's investigation focused solely on evaluating whether Coach McKeever's conduct violated applicable policies without regard to whether other coaches' methods also violated these policies."

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there was specific discussion sbetween the Chancellor's office and UC counsel with the investigators on their sense on the administrators' and other coaches' conduct. I suspect that JK and other administrators will be individually named in lawsuits, including by McKeever, and that any prior conduct will likely come out unless litigants are paid to go away and there are nondisclosure agreements, including by McKeever. Time will tell what happens in this regard. The investigation and firing of McKeever is only the first step.

Assuming there is an insurer involved (and I wouldn't say this is a given, as my former firm represented UC ob employment matters and UC tended to self-insurer on most employment matters), for those not involved, insurance counsel represents the insured, not ihe insurance company, though they have to report to adjusters. The typical policy consent to settle clause generally requires that an insurer obtain its insured's consent before settling a claim, where the insured's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The lawyers do not make decisions, though they can make recommendations in good faith. Interpretations of consent to settle clauses vary from state to state, especially as to the "reasonableness" of an insured's refusal to consent to settlement, and this may not come as a surprise but CA court's tend to focus on protecting the insured's expectations, rather than the insurer's desire to settle. Thus, expect settlements to have non-disclosures.

---

Who would take up any further investigation into the ADs office and how would that be initiated? If responsible bodies (ie the chancellor's office) fail to follow up, is that in itself a violation or at least worthy of a separate investigation. IOW, can the administration be investigated for failing to investigate the ADs office? And, if it could theoretically be justified, how would it actually happen?

Ursine said:

---

maxer said:

---

Newkirk: "Male coaches, who are not abusing anyone must now be fired."

---

Good luck with that.

---

Exactly, and the statement makes zero sense nor will that logic get through the door of any courthouse in America.

heartofthebear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

Good and had to be done with so many confirmed complaints.....expect a lawsuit from McKeever and eventually a settlement which I don't think she deserves.

---

And what about the AD who ignored the complaints?

---

This responds to several comments about prospective litigation, since it is clear there are omments by those that have not read the report.

Number 1 litigant is Coach McKeever, who submitted a formal, written complaint to OPHD on November 28, 2022, asserting that she has been wrongfully accused of bullying and abuse and that the University's investigation of her conduct constitutes gender discrimination and reflected gender- biased views. Expect to see more of that when the coach sues Cal.

There may be certain athletes that sue, though it is hard to get a handle on whom and how many. Part of the problem in reading the report is the massive deletions when it comes to the investigators' conclusions regarding disputed allegations. There were findings on former athletes who were subject to abuse, before polices were implemented. One wonders in statute of limitations have expired since when events took place are generally deleted as well, but at least your told the investigators generally sided with those former athletes making allegations.

You would think that on a lot of the allegations, the investigators sided with the accusers given that McKeever was terminated. That said, the discussions seem to be going McKeever's way in certain accusations, but you never know because of the massive deletions.

As for AD staff and or other coaches:

"MTO was not retained to investigate the University's knowledge of Coach McKeever's conduct or its past responses to allegations of misconduct by Coach McKeever. MTO did, however, gather information related to Coach McKeever's defenses and responses to the allegations in order to evaluate them, and among Coach McKeever's defenses, she alleged that the University knew of her coaching methods and of prior complaints and had not found her conduct problematic or violative of any policies. Although MTO gathered all relevant information that witnesses provided or gave MTO access to, MTO did not make factual findings or policy determinations on these issues because they were outside of the scope of the investigation.

MTO also was not retained to investigate, and did not investigate, other coaches and their methods of coaching. MTO's investigation focused solely on evaluating whether Coach McKeever's conduct violated applicable policies without regard to whether other coaches' methods also violated these policies."

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there was specific discussion sbetween the Chancellor's office and UC counsel with the investigators on their sense on the administrators' and other coaches' conduct. I suspect that JK and other administrators will be individually named in lawsuits, including by McKeever, and that any prior conduct will likely come out unless litigants are paid to go away and there are nondisclosure agreements, including by McKeever. Time will tell what happens in this regard. The investigation and firing of McKeever is only the first step.

Assuming there is an insurer involved (and I wouldn't say this is a given, as my former firm represented UC ob employment matters and UC tended to self-insurer on most employment matters), for those not involved, insurance counsel represents the insured, not ihe insurance company, though they have to report to adjusters. The typical policy consent to settle clause generally requires that an insurer obtain its insured's consent before settling a claim, where the insured's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The lawyers do not make decisions, though they can make recommendations in good faith. Interpretations of consent to settle clauses vary from state to state, especially as to the "reasonableness" of an insured's refusal to consent to settlement, and this may not come as a surprise but CA court's tend to focus on protecting the insured's expectations, rather than the insurer's desire to settle. Thus, expect settlements to have non-disclosures.

---

Who would take up any further investigation into the ADs office and how would that be initiated? If responsible bodies (ie the chancellor's office) fail to follow up, is that in itself a violation or at least worthy of a separate investigation. IOW, can the administration be investigated for failing to investigate the ADs office? And, if it could theoretically be justified, how would it actually happen?

---

I'm surprised that was not part of the investigation. I assume all the info comes out in discovery, since McKeever is suing and making the actions of JK and others germane to her defense. The only question is if, how and when the information becomes public. If formal claims are made against JK or others by students, Cal must follow its procedures and have an investigation, though the investigation can be done internally and could, but does not necessarily have to be, completed by an independent law firm. I think most lawyer types are predicting a settlement with a non-disclosure for McKeever to make it all go away.

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

maxer said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

Good and had to be done with so many confirmed complaints.....expect a lawsuit from McKeever and eventually a settlement which I don't think she deserves.

---

Her employment contract has been posted here on numerous occasions.

I dont see any kind of "settlement" regarding her firing for cause when her employment contract never required "cause" to be fired in the first place and in fact, was written with her waiving her right to a Skelly hearing. She has very little recourse, if any.

---

She's going to be suing claiming gender discrimination.

Quote:

---

Newkirk called the process leading to this decision "one of the most disturbing displays of double standards and enabling of gender bias directed at a female coach," citing Cal's handling of complaints against its women's soccer coach as one example of that double standard. He said McKeever will be filing a lawsuit against the university.

"The coaching profession is at a crossroads," Newkirk said. "The complaints made about Teri were largely the result of gendered differences in how she was judged as a female but also based on gendered evaluations of female athletes. The complaints were also the result of a lack of resources provided to help coaches manage the mental health challenges of athletes. Coaches are all at risk as they seek to walk the line of great coaching compared to what any disappointed athlete or parent can now claim is abuse."

"Teri will be filing suit to expose the manner in which gender has affected not only the evaluation of her coaching but harmed and continues to harm both female and male athletes," he added. "Female athletes, including those who complained, have been treated in a patronizing manner by this administration. Male athletes who need actual help with mental health are being ignored. Male coaches, who are not abusing anyone must now be fired. Teri is committed to finding the answer to this national problem that is destroying not only female coaches but coaching as a profession."

---

Rest of the article (including her lengthy statement) found here: https://swimswam.com/cal-fires-teri-mckeever-after-8-month-investigation-into-allegations-of-bullying/

---

Lol. Gender discrimination? I hope they have evidence of a relentless pursuit of mental health care on their students' behalf, else I hope Cal sues them for all legal fees and this gets tossed as far as the eye can see.

---

I'm about 100+ pages into reading the report. Through those pages I'd say the charges of racially motivated hostility are thin/nuanced. On the other hand the charges related to bullying, hostile environment and other charges are substantial. All she has to do is show male coaches who are "old school" but still employed and she'll arguably have a colorable claim. I suspect she'll be able to show that with relative ease. I predict Cal pays a settlement.

---

I think she'll have a hard time showing gender bias because she has to show that the university systematically treats coaches differently based on gender. Just because they fired her (a single case) and didn't fire a male coach (a single coach) who did similar things cannot prove bias. She is the plaintiff, the burder of proof is on her to prove bias. She has to show more than one case. I don't think Berkeley is retaining male coaches that have done what she did and I doubt they have plans to retain any coach as such. The University had an obligation to investigate and take action based on the findings because there had been complaints. If there are not complaints about a male coach doing the same thing, then the disparity would not be based on gender but rather a difference in circumstances that were independent of gender.

---

Weren't there similar complaints against the women's soccer coach? And around the same time as the complaints against McKeever IIRC.

BearGoggles said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

3 DOZEN posts about McKeever's firing and not a single post from BearGoggles who spent hours here defending McKeever's right to due process after investigative reporter Scott Reid blew open this story.

Shocker.

---

If you're expecting me to apologize for being in favor of due process (and Cal minimizing its exposure by following the standard administrative policies), you're wrong. It is you that looks foolish (and authoritarian) for arguing against a fundamental right like due process.

Cal provided due process and did what it could to minimize litigation exposure. That was the right thing to do legally even if you can't see that.

---

You clearly never bothered to read her employment contract.
You were too busy obsessing about "due-process" and reporter Scott Reid having an axe to grind.

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

BigDaddyBear said:

---

Good and had to be done with so many confirmed complaints.....expect a lawsuit from McKeever and eventually a settlement which I don't think she deserves.

---

And what about the AD who ignored the complaints?

---

If you are going there, then it's plural. Knowlton at least cleaned this up, and okay, about effing time if you want to be critical, sure. But she didn't start being a monster under him...

---

Well the complaints were made directly to him, he dismissed them in violation of university, state and federal rules and law and gave McKeever a big new contract. The investigation and "clean up" only happened months after it hit the national press and Cal's hand was forced.

But if you want to fire past Cal ADs too, go right ahead.

Why are you such a defender of Knowlton anyway?

---

I think there is plenty of blame to place on this, and that's why I specifically said that blaming Knowlton was included.
I feel awful for these student athletes, because of McKeever first and foremost, and those who want to just move on to make this yet another Knowlton thread are deflecting away from the number one villian here. Before anyone comes after me again: I said number one, I didn't say "only."

Why would she sue? Doesn'to she have enough money? The settlement from Cal won impact anyone at Cal. All this does is air her dirty laundry and piss off some girls who may sue her privately. I would if I were them.she should just realize that her life is over and go home and watch old olympics on tv.

oskidunker said:

---

Why would she sue? Doesn'to she have enough money? The settlement from Cal won impact anyone at Cal. All this does is air her dirty laundry and piss off some girls who may sue her privately. I would if I were them.she should just realize that her life is over and go home and watch old olympics on tv.

---

Because she doesn't think she did anything wrong. It is important, I think, to read the last parts of the report which outline her defense.

I think the legally suprious but important sociological claim is that her behavior is commonplace in swim. I don't have any doubt that is the case (see a post I made above about traditional coaching in individually centric olympic sports and my questioning of whether they really have a place at this elite level at an institution of higher education).

BearGoggles said:

---

Yet here you are, in your typical condescending fashion, still insisting you know better and that her contract is all that matters.

And yes, I thought Reid was over his skis in some of the claims he made (i.e., did not provide the factual basis for the conclusions/claims he made) and was biased in his presentation. In particular, if you're going to call someone a racist, you better provide very clear details of what allegedly occurred. He did not and I think that's wrong. Unfortunately those sections of the report are so redacted, it remains impossible to know what actually happened.

---

You've already demonstrated how terribly POOR your reading comprehension is when it comes to the McKeever story. Do you really want to rehash how utterly clueless you were in the original thread on Growls?


1.) Your idea of "bias" is absurd especially given your vigilant defense of Donald Trump in the OT Forum.

2.) Your idea of me being a Cal Aquatics Recruiting "insider" because I lived on the same dorm floor as Pete Cutino, Jr my sophomore year was about as hilarious a claim as I've ever seen posted on Bearinsider.

3.) You're the guy that made a number of terribly "bogus" claims about me on the original McKeever thread, including that I claimed to have "hooked up with Lou Campanelli at Calippe". That was Bearister who made that claim. Not me. Do you post when you're drunk? Or is your reading comprehension really that poor?

4.) Moreover, you claimed that reporter Scott Reid never even bothered to ask the University or Jim Knowlton for a comment and that was (partly) the basis for your claim of biased reporting.

Never mind that Reid asked the University AND Knowlton for comment in his very first article in the Orange County Register and it was literally posted in the first article of the original McKeever thread that they had both DECLINED.

5.) I dont trust your cognitive skills whatsoever.


OT: Teri McKeever - Page 8 | Bear Insider

OT: Teri McKeever - Page 9 | Bear Insider