Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

Jim Boylan sues Cavs for age discrimination

Discussion in 'Mark Blount's Port Cellar: Celtics Forum' started by maufman, Nov 2, 2018.

  1. maufman

    maufman Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers Staff Member Dope Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    23,630
    Notably, Ty Lue is not named as a defendant. Will be interesting to see what he says now that he presumably has no incentive to protect the Cavs.

    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...jim-boylan-files-age-discrimination-suit-team

     
  2. Gash Prex

    Gash Prex Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,634
    I’ve been sitting here working on an employment case and wondering whether or not you can be liable for age discrimination for failing to excercise a contractual obligation.
     
  3. maufman

    maufman Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers Staff Member Dope Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    23,630
    I don’t think it matters whether the Cavs terminated Boylan, or declined to hire him (by not picking the option) — if they acted based on his age, that’s illegal.

    Seems to me this case rises and falls on whether Lue confirms Boylan’s account.
     
  4. sezwho

    sezwho Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    395
    Ironic that it’s illegal (or seems to be) to make a coaching decision around age but it’s often a primary factor for the players.
     
  5. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    1,303
    Confirms what account? That the the voice on the voicemail recording is Lue’s? Because it seems pretty clear Boylan and his lawyers still have the recording.
     
  6. maufman

    maufman Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers Staff Member Dope Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    23,630
    Remember, Lue isn’t named as a defendant, which means Boylan thinks the decision not to retain him wasn’t Lue’s call. On the voicemail, Lue is recounting what someone else purportedly said his motive was. It’s therefore a statement by a witness, not an admission.

    Even assuming the tape gets around the hearsay rules and is admitted into evidence (which I think it would be), I don’t think that carries the day with a judge or jury if Lue has changed his story. If Lue testifies and confirms what he said on the voicemail, that’s a different story.
     
    #6 maufman, Nov 4, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  7. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    1,303
    There are many reasons why a plaintiff does not name as a defendant someone he could name as a defendant. It doesn’t necessarily even mean Boylan actually even believes Lue didn’t bless the decision. Most relevant here among those are sufficient depth of pockets of those he did name, and the possibility of having such a potential defendant being a cooperating witness, rather than blatantly antagonizing him by naming him a defendant in a lawsuit.

    Regardless, one need not be a named defendant to be considered a party opponent for the purposes of an admission. The then-head coach delivering the news to an assistant his option would not be picked up would surely check all the boxes (an agent acting within the scope of his employment, basically).
     
  8. maufman

    maufman Anderson Cooper x Mr. Rogers Staff Member Dope Gold Supporter

    Messages:
    23,630
    I think you’re right about the hearsay analysis. I just don’t think the tape is compelling evidence if Lue testifies differently.

    If this doesn’t settle quickly, the Cavs’ defense will be something like this:

    Even though we went to the Finals, we didn’t have confidence in Ty Lue. In hindsight, we should’ve brought in a new head coach and let that person decide which assistants, if any, to retain. But at the time, we decided to give Lue a chance, but we insisted he make changes to his coaching staff. We wanted Boylan out because [reasons]. It’s not shocking that Lue made up a story instead of telling Boylan the truth, because he didn’t want to admit we had totally undercut him, and he didn’t agree with [reasons]. You’d have to ask Lue why he said Boylan’s age was a factor; it never came up in our discussions.”

    That’s hardly an ironclad case, but I think Boylan needs Lue’s testimony to beat it, particularly since Boylan apparently concedes that Lue didn’t make the call not to retain him.
     
  9. The Needler

    The Needler lurker

    Messages:
    1,303
    Yeah, I’m sure they would say something like that. And I would 100% rather be the plaintiff in this case, who has the absolute best evidence in the form of a smoking gun recording, along with his own testimony that Altman told him the same thing Lue did on the phone, as well as the retention and hiring of younger coaches. The Cavs are way behind the eight ball here, and will almost certainly be paying out a settlement way in excess of Boylan’s option. What an organization.
     

Share This Page