Holly replacement?

#52

JohnWardForever

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
5,135
Likes
841
#52
Title 9? I don't think PF will have any of those issues if he Replaces HW. And If he doesn't do it soon; It will be much harder to resurrect the Program. Holly never was and never will be Head Coach Material. It Takes a special kind.
 
#53

T-TownVol

Everything's Gonna Be Alright
Lab Rat
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
18,922
Likes
5,621
#53
Fulmer fires Holly, Debby Jennings gets pissed off. Holly teams up with Debby, Holly files a lawsuit for sexual discrimination against Fulmer. Fulmer wants not part of this, period.

Don't believe it can happen? See Debby Jennings vs. UT lawsuit
One of the most ignorant posts ever on VN.
 
#56

lvocd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
1,221
#56
I think that either the subject title of the original post needs to be edited, or this entire thread deleted by someone with the power to do it.

In this tense climate, I don't think it's funny -- and shouldn't be allowed -- to put up a subject line like that if it is not factual. :mad:
 
#58

T.J.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
1,435
Likes
1,534
#58
Holly is doing a fine job. Her coaching is willing this team to victories. She is a great leader and has this team on an upward trajectory.
Finally someone making sense! Holly ain't going lightly. Leave her alone & let her coach the team! She just needs more time with this group.

She's a life long Lady Vol. She deserves our respect for at least trying. Losing 6 straight wasn't her fault. Got the team on a 3 game win streak.

I say let her play this out at least till 2022.

All the Holly fans say OH YEAH!

😋
 
#62

JohnWardForever

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
5,135
Likes
841
#62
Interesting, how did this title IX lawsuit workout?

University of Tennessee settles Title IX lawsuit for $2.48 million




Tennessee, Debby Jennings settle lawsuit
Jennings' lawyer, David Burkhalter, released a statement Thursday that said the parties had "reached an amicable settlement" and noted the amount. The lawsuit, filed in September 2012, alleged age and sex discrimination had led to Jennings' forced retirement after 35 years at the university.

"I am hopeful my lawsuit has cast some light on some of the inequities that I and others experienced in the combined UT athletics department," Jennings said in a statement released by Burkhalter. "My sincere desire is that my university will strive to bridge the gap in the disparity of the number of women and minorities in leadership roles within the (athletic department)."

"Now that Debby has reached an amicable settlement, we hope that the public attention that has been brought by the suit to the disparity of women and minorities in leadership roles in the University of Tennessee athletic department will be addressed, and the suit will be a vehicle for positive change in the athletic department,"

Tennessee still faces another discrimination lawsuit from former director of sports medicine Jenny Moshak and ex-Lady Vols strength coaches Heather Mason and Collin Schlosser. The plaintiffs say they performed similar tasks as employees who held similar positions for men's teams, but that they received less compensation either because of their gender or due to their association with women's teams.

Gee all sounds like Title IX to me
I think a very close valuation of prospective hires is in order. One shouldn't have to defend against itself. Interview, agree on compensation, and never discuss Pay again; until performance merits a RAISE. Damn PC Liberals have about screwed this Country; totally. No Common sense anymore. When the Owners are no longer in charge, anarchy. Most of this Crap is Frivolous; and UT "Settles" to make it go away. The Times they are a changing; and not for the better.
 
#63

Decker Moss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2013
Messages
414
Likes
519
#63
Finally someone making sense! Holly ain't going lightly. Leave her alone & let her coach the team! She just needs more time with this group.

She's a life long Lady Vol. She deserves our respect for at least trying. Losing 6 straight wasn't her fault. Got the team on a 3 game win streak.

I say let her play this out at least till 2022.

All the Holly fans say OH YEAH!

😋
I know this was a joke, but you summed up the Holly philosophy very well. If we lose it’s not my fault, but if we win it’s because I got us there.

In summary:
Negative Outcome - Everyone else’s fault.
Positive Outcome - It’s because of me.

o_O
 
#65

Volsfaninva917

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
11,201
Likes
13,163
#65
Only because you do not understand what Title IX is and refuse to learn. As I explained earlier (futilely), the Jennings and Moshak suits were based in claims of age and gender discrimination (with Moshak only referencing the latter). Suits are filed under a provision of the civil rights act which the Supreme court ruled covered gender an age factors. The media references Title IX because both parties worked in the women's athletic sphere but title IX, per se, was not the legal basis of the lawsuit.

Also, you don't seem to understand how out of court settlements work. Jennings original suit was for 2.48 million. However, she settled for 320,000 with a chunk of that covering legal fees:

Former Lady Vols media director Debby Jennings has reached a $320,000 settlement in her lawsuit against the University of Tennessee and athletics director Dave Hart.
Source: Tennessee, Debby Jennings settle lawsuit

Out of court settlements generally when both parties recognize they have vulnerabilities (UT bad press and evidence where the courts could rule in Jennings favor; Jennings enough ambiguity about her situation that the court could also rule in favor of UT leaving her with hefty legal fees).
Title XI is a civil rights matter? And clearly states at a federally funded school you cannot discriminate against sex, race, religion or origin. I'm not arguing with you btw, I'm just simply having conversation. So don't take my responses as rude


Title IX - Wikipedia

Title IX is a federal civil rights law in the United States of America that was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Feminists during the early 1970s lobbied Congress to add sex as a protected class category. Title IX was enacted to fill this gap and prohibit discrimination in all federally funded education programs. Congressman John Tower then proposed an amendment to Title IX that would have exempted athletics departments from the scope of Title IX's coverage. The Tower amendment was rejected, but it led to widespread misunderstanding of Title IX as a sports-equity law, rather than an anti-discrimination, civil rights law.
 
#66

T.J.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
1,435
Likes
1,534
#66
I know this was a joke, but you summed up the Holly philosophy very well. If we lose it’s not my fault, but if we win it’s because I got us there.

In summary:
Negative Outcome - Everyone else’s fault.
Positive Outcome - It’s because of me.

o_O
Exactly! It's maddening.
That emoji got me lol 🙂
 
#67

Rudy123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
7,230
Likes
1,848
#67
Pls.. Becky Hammond

It is difficult to replace a legend and continue to win. When Dean Smith retired, his lifelong assistant, Bill Guthrie, only won 667% of his games, while Smith won 774% of his games.
Holly has taken that to another level though and lost many games that we should have won easily or at least been competitive in.
Please Fulmer, don't extend her contract
 
#69

Volfan2012

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
13,449
Likes
6,363
#69
Were a 21 point underdog to Miss St when have we ever been a 21 point underdog. I know we've got blasted by some teams that we were the favorites and some where we were just a few point underdog. In this upcoming game were a 21 point underdog hopefully we can do better than that but I suspect this is right.
 
#70

Volfan2012

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
13,449
Likes
6,363
#70
Title IX has nothing to do with the hiring and firing of a coach. There is a contract between the two parties that can be terminated at anytime provided all compensation liabilities are met. In Holly's case she has a three year 690 k contract with some kind of buyout. So if we wanted to cancel and buy her out would certainly be legal and in no way even remotely attached to IX.
 
#71

madtownvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
1,615
Likes
4,047
#71
Title XI is a civil rights matter? And clearly states at a federally funded school you cannot discriminate against sex, race, religion or origin. I'm not arguing with you btw, I'm just simply having conversation. So don't take my responses as rude


Title IX - Wikipedia

Title IX is a federal civil rights law in the United States of America that was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Feminists during the early 1970s lobbied Congress to add sex as a protected class category. Title IX was enacted to fill this gap and prohibit discrimination in all federally funded education programs. Congressman John Tower then proposed an amendment to Title IX that would have exempted athletics departments from the scope of Title IX's coverage. The Tower amendment was rejected, but it led to widespread misunderstanding of Title IX as a sports-equity law, rather than an anti-discrimination, civil rights law.
The key word in your above comment is education. Here is the actual text of Title IX:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That statement covers access to education programs. It is much broader than sports but sports (which in college as treated as a kind of education program) became a key part of the equation because women, did not have the same access to athletic programs as men at almost all colleges and universities.

So let's think about title IX in its broader application. If UT said to a male student, who can't enroll in nursing classes because only women are allowed (or some more subtle way of discriminating against male candidates), the MALE student could sue under Title IX. Contrary to what some folks on this board choose to believe, title IX is not a communist plot specifically designed to disadvantage men. Both genders can gain protection/fair treatment under title IX, it just that historically many more doors have been closed to women than men.

Debby Jennings was A WORKPLACE discrimination suit. That is not a Title IX manner (but Title VII). It is different kind of discrimination claim with a different standard of proof.

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects employees against discrimination based on certain specified characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex, age, and religion. Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate with regard to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. Areas that may give rise to violations include recruiting, hiring, promoting, transferring, training, disciplining, discharging, assigning work, measuring performance, or providing benefits. Title VII applies to employers in both the private and public sectors that have 15 or more employees. It also applies to the federal government, employment agencies, and labor organizations. Title VII is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." [quoted from From an EEOC info page].

However, there has been much debate in the courts as to whether Title IX, in some situations, can cover workplace discrimination and this where matters gets a bit tricky. In education settings, a gender discrimination suit can by brought by faculty and staff but the logic is not oriented toward personal harm but rather redressing a structural bias. In other words, the plaintiff says "I am suing, not because I was discriminated against per se, but because my case shows that all people who share my characteristics (sex, gender identity) are systematically denied an equal opportunity and/or fair treatment. If a court agreed with the plaintiff in such a Title IX suit , the remedy could involve federal funding being withdrawn from the institution unless its make the required changes to its hiring and promotion practices. The other legal debate is whether a plaintiff can simultaneously file a suit under title VII (I was discriminated against) and Title IX (this institution, in general, discriminates against people like me). I believe the current standard is that such dual suit can be filed

I do not the know the full details of Jennings lawsuit and it is conceivable she may have also included some Title IX claims, directed at the institution, but it seems that the bulk of her grievance fell under Title VII provisions.

I will add that this discussion because one poster said that UTAD was afraid to fire Holly because she would bring a Title IX lawsuit. So, I will reiterate that firing a coach for insufficient performance is not a Title IX matter nor is it a Title VII matter. Her contract includes 36 just cause provisions, the University is covered. Folks who compare Holly's situation to Debby Jennings are either willfully ignoring or trolling.
 
Last edited:
#72

madtownvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
1,615
Likes
4,047
#72
I think a very close valuation of prospective hires is in order. One shouldn't have to defend against itself. Interview, agree on compensation, and never discuss Pay again; until performance merits a RAISE. Damn PC Liberals have about screwed this Country; totally. No Common sense anymore. When the Owners are no longer in charge, anarchy. Most of this Crap is Frivolous; and UT "Settles" to make it go away. The Times they are a changing; and not for the better.
Who is the "owner" of a state supported University?

Is it anarchy that business owners are now required by law to provide a safe workplace as opposed to putting workers in harms way: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia

I am guessing you are a more mature poster. If you are not yet retired, you have protections under title VII which "protects employees against discrimination based on certain specified characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex, age, and religion. Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate with regard to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. Areas that may give rise to violations include recruiting, hiring, promoting, transferring, training, disciplining, discharging, assigning work, measuring performance, or providing benefits. Title VII applies to employers in both the private and public sectors that have 15 or more employees. It also applies to the federal government, employment agencies, and labor organizations. Title VII is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." [quoted from From an EEOC info page].

So, if you have been doing a demonstrably good job for a company for many years and the employer decides to fire you simply because you are deemed to be too old for the company's image, you can have legal recourse to that unfair treatment. So, what is it about this legal protection that you find so objectionable? Why is having provisions for fair treatment "a damned liberal PC plot that has screwed the country?"

You remember those folks who threw all that tea in the Boston harbor to protest "taxation without representation" way back in 1773? They were challenging the authority of their "owners" (the British monarchy) and the ensuing revolutionary war was indeed kind of anarchic. So, were the founding fathers, in your opinion, damned PC liberals who should have remained the obedient subjects of their British masters? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
#75

lvocd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
1,221
#75
Who is the "owner" of a state supported University?

Is it anarchy that business owners are now required by law to provide a safe workplace as opposed to putting workers in harms way: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia

I am guessing you are a more mature poster. If you are not yet retired, you have protections under title VII which "protects employees against discrimination based on certain specified characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex, age, and religion. Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate with regard to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. Areas that may give rise to violations include recruiting, hiring, promoting, transferring, training, disciplining, discharging, assigning work, measuring performance, or providing benefits. Title VII applies to employers in both the private and public sectors that have 15 or more employees. It also applies to the federal government, employment agencies, and labor organizations. Title VII is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." [quoted from From an EEOC info page].

So, if you have been doing a demonstrably good job for a company for many years and the employer decides to fire you simply because you are deemed to be too old for the company's image, you can have legal recourse to that unfair treatment. So, what is it about this legal protection that you find so objectionable? Why is having provisions for fair treatment "a damned liberal PC plot that has screwed the country?"

You remember those folks who threw all that tea in the Boston harbor to "protest taxation without representation" way back in 1773? They were challenging the authority of their "owners" (the British monarchy) and the ensuing revolutionary war was indeed kind of anarchic. So, were the founding fathers, in your opinion, damned PC liberals who should have remained the obedient subjects of their British masters? Just curious.

Well said. Thank you.
 

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top