HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ex Duck: Jason Bailey Sues Ducks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-26-2011, 01:36 AM
  #1
Mooseduck
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,015
vCash: 500
Ex Duck: Jason Bailey Sues Ducks

Bailey Sues Ducks
Quote:
A Jewish hockey player sued the National Hockey League's Anaheim Ducks on Tuesday, claiming that coaches of one of its affiliate teams subjected him to harassment and anti-Semitic remarks.
Jason Bailey, 23, is seeking unspecified damages in the action filed in Orange County (California) Superior Court against the Ducks, the Bakersfield Condors and coaches Martin Raymond and Mark Pederson.
- Read More Here-

Other sources reporting as well.

Mooseduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 02:13 AM
  #2
Hawktopus
Registered User
 
Hawktopus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseduck View Post
Bailey Sues Ducks

- Read More Here-

Other sources reporting as well.
Read this on TSN just now.
Disgraceful, the coaching staff of Elmira should be fired.

Hawktopus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 04:27 AM
  #3
imbatman
Registered User
 
imbatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawktopus View Post
Read this on TSN just now.
Disgraceful, the coaching staff of Elmira should be fired.
This happened a few years ago in Bakersfield.

imbatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 04:40 AM
  #4
mightyquack
Rekordtorschütze!
 
mightyquack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Germany
Posts: 18,075
vCash: 500
Shouldn't they be suing the minor league affiliate?

mightyquack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 11:18 AM
  #5
Jerky Leclerc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Anaheim
Country: United States
Posts: 7,634
vCash: 500
It is amazing that we live in the 21st century and anti-semitism is still a prevalent theme in our society.

Here is a picture of the coach.


Jerky Leclerc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 12:17 PM
  #6
Sirquacksalot
¡Viva Los Patos!
 
Sirquacksalot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Mojave
Posts: 5,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyquack View Post
Shouldn't they be suing the minor league affiliate?
Why? The Ducks have more money. No point in suing if you can't become filthy stinking rich off of it.

Sirquacksalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 01:06 PM
  #7
Fighter
Soviet Duck
 
Fighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Trieste, Italy
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,904
vCash: 500
Load of crap.

Fighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 02:27 PM
  #8
mightyquack
Rekordtorschütze!
 
mightyquack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Germany
Posts: 18,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper35 View Post
Why? The Ducks have more money. No point in suing if you can't become filthy stinking rich off of it.
Ah yes, how could I forget

But seriously, surely this would fail? Employee of minor league affiliate was the one guilty so unless he sues the minor league affiliate it won't stand will it?

That being said, I have no idea about the law

mightyquack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 03:33 PM
  #9
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,987
vCash: 500
It probably depends on if he was on the Ducks payroll or not. I believe the AHL coach is, but I don't think their ties with the ECHL is as close.

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 10:01 PM
  #10
Kevin Forbes
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,197
vCash: 500
I'm pretty sure that Raymond (the coach) had a contract with Bakersfield, not with Anaheim. For reference, Raymond is still the coach there (which on a side note, that kind of boggles the mind, isn't there some code of conduct rules in the ECHL?)

Anyway, it doesn't matter who actually employed Raymond, the relevant piece in regards to where the lawsuit is targeted is who employed Bailey. In this case it was Anaheim and that's why the Ducks carry some responsibility here, because they put their employee in this situation.

Now I'm sure that everything that happened after the fact was completely unrelated but the fact that after Bailey complained, he found himself sitting in Iowa for a while (with minimal icetime/opportunity) and then eventually dealt away from the organization doesn't necessarily look great either. It's likely that those were all hockey decisions, not decisions made to deal with a squeaky wheel, but the perception is certainly bad too.

Kevin Forbes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2011, 11:13 PM
  #11
mightyquack
Rekordtorschütze!
 
mightyquack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Germany
Posts: 18,075
vCash: 500
Pretty retarded how the Ducks are sued given they didn't really have control over the ****wits at Bakersfield.

mightyquack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2011, 01:02 AM
  #12
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,465
vCash: 500
Btw, I just realized it's quite easy to misread the thread title as Jason Bailey Does Suck.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2011, 12:29 PM
  #13
mmbt
Cheeky Monkey
 
mmbt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 9,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Forbes View Post
Now I'm sure that everything that happened after the fact was completely unrelated but the fact that after Bailey complained, he found himself sitting in Iowa for a while (with minimal icetime/opportunity) and then eventually dealt away from the organization doesn't necessarily look great either. It's likely that those were all hockey decisions, not decisions made to deal with a squeaky wheel, but the perception is certainly bad too.
I don't think it looks bad at all. It looks like the team made an effort to get him away from a bad situation, and when a resolution couldn't be found they traded him. That he wasn't good enough to play regularly in the AHL is a separate issue, and if it's true that he refused to be sent to the Central Hockey League as an alternative then he really doesn't have much to complain about. The Ducks may have a responsibility to get him out of there, but they don't have a responsibility to play him minutes that he doesn't deserve.

Sure, ideally he could have stayed in the ECHL somewhere, but it's not always possible to find a situation where you can loan a guy, especially one who might be a bottom-of-the-organizational-chart type.

mmbt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2011, 09:12 PM
  #14
Nikko*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,291
vCash: 500
What a pansy... I hate our sue happy society.

Nikko* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2011, 11:11 PM
  #15
Gibson Les Palms
Registered User
 
Gibson Les Palms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,758
vCash: 814
All I can say is I'd do the same thing.

Despite the mystery surrounding this issue there is probably at least some truth to this and probably some deplorable behavior exercised by the coach. To say it's a complete load of crap would be ignorant.

Gibson Les Palms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 01:37 AM
  #16
Gibson Les Palms
Registered User
 
Gibson Les Palms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,758
vCash: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerky Leclerc View Post
It is amazing that we live in the 21st century and anti-semitism is still a prevalent theme in our society.

Here is a picture of the coach.

LMFAO!!!!


So funny and so true!!!

Gibson Les Palms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 12:37 PM
  #17
GreatBear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 322
vCash: 500
I go on vacation and this lawsuit breaks out, what fun. I have not read the Complaint since I just got back last night. However, since it appears that most of the comments is this discussion reflect a lack of knowledge of the law and the legal process, I feel that I can contribute to this discussion by giving a short summary of the law and how this case may proceed.

I apoligze in advance for typos and missing words. I have not the world's best proofreader, and I managed to get sick while on vacation. If I am not making any sense let me know and I will try and clarify what I have said.

There are US and California state laws against discrimination based upon a number of factors, including religion. Discrimination is considered to include harassment based upon a protected area, such as religion. The harassment can be from another employee of the employer, but does not need, in California, to be so. In California (and possibly other states, although I am most familiar with California law), the harassment can by a third party, such as a vendor, supplier or even a customer of the employer.

This California law explains why the Ducks can be sued for the alleged actions of the Bakersfield coach. The Ducks assigned or placed their employee in a position of having to be in contact with the coach, and thus had an obligation to protect their employee from harassment on the basis of religion from that coach.

An employer is required to not discriminate on the basis of religion and is required to take reasonable steps to prevent an employee from being harassed on the basis of these factors. These reasonable steps will generally include an internal investigation of the complaint and, if harassment is found, some sort of steps to protect the employee from harassment.

I am not aware of what investigation the Ducks undertook, but based upon the articles that I have read, it appears that they did some investigation. It also appears that the Ducks took some steps to protect the player based upon his complaints to them, but it is not completely clear what all of those were.

If an employee feels that he has been discriminated against or harassed based upon his/er religion, the employee is required to complain to his employer and give his employer an opportunity to take corrective action. The employee is then required to file a complaint regarding the harassment with either the EEOC or the appropriate state agency, in California the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

If not before, by the time that the complaint was filed with the federal or state agency, the Ducks would have involved their legal counsel. The Ducks legal counsel would do its own investigation of the facts and the law in order to prepare a response for the employment complaint with the federal or state agency. Unless the employee asked for an immediate right to sue, the Ducks would file a response to the employee's complaint with the governmental agency. The Ducks legal counsel would prepare and filed this response for the Ducks.

If the employee fails to file the complaint with the federal or state agency, the employee can not sue. If the employee files such a complaint the agency can do an investigation and reach results, or it can issue a "Right to Sue" letter based upon either its findings or a request by the employee to file litigation. It is not unusal for an employee to file a complaint with the EEOC or state and then immediately ask for a "Right to Sue" letter.

Once the employee has the right to sue, the employee's lawyer will file a Complaint, stating the cause of action. The defendant will then have the right to either file a Demurrer, which is essential a motion saying that the Complaint should be dismissed on legal grounds, or an Answer. If the defendant files a Demurrer and the court rules that the Complaint is sufficient to at least state some sort of cause against the defendant, then then the Defendant will file an Answer.

It is unusual for a court to completely throw out a case at this stage, since the court needs to assume that, at this point in time, everything alleged in the Complaint is true. However, there are times when a court will throw out part of the Complaint or order the employee to file a restated Complaint.

Because of all of the previous steps, the filing of a Complaint would not have been a surprise to the Ducks. Indeed, most of their work in developing the defense of the claim will already have been done.

One the Answer is filed the parties will engage in discovery, which is the taking of depositions, requesting documents and the like. Once discover is completed, either party can, and often does, file a Motion for Summary Judgement.

It is almost always the defendant employer that files such a motion in employment cases. The defendant's motion asks the court to rule that the eployee's case has no merit, and that as a matter of the facts developed in discovery the case should be won by the defendant.

Courts will sometimes grant these Motions for Summary Judgement. While the court is required to interprete all disputed facts in favor of the employee in the event that the employer files the motion, there are cases where a court will rule, based upon the facts, including disputed facts, that the defendant should win.

If the court denies the Motion for Summary Judgement the case will go to trial unless it is settled beforehand. In California the courts will almost certainly require both parties to go to mediation to attempt to settle the case before trial. In some cases the court will order many such mediation attempts.

In the event of a settlement the parties will probably agree to keep the settlement confidential. Thus, all we will hear is that the parties have resolved their differences and will proceed onward, without knowing what money, if any, was paid by the Ducks.

The trial, if there is one, will determine liability, if any, and damages if there is liability. The discussion of damages would include an extensive discussion of the ability of the player, the impact on the player, if any, of his ability to advance in professional hockey, and how, if at all, his ability to progress was impacted by the alleged harassment. The damages will also include an evaluation of the amount of distress suffered by the employee as a result of the alleged harassment.

Due to the budget situation in California the courts have had to slow the handling of these cases. It will probably take 2 - 3 years, at least, for this case to get to trial, from the filing of the Complaint. I would think 3 years would be a closer estimate.

In the event of a trial, the losing party will be liable for the "costs" of the case to the other party. These costs are not all costs entailed in the litigation, and do not include attorneys fees. Instead, the costs include such matters as filing fees, the cost of deposition transcripts and the like.

If the employee wins at trial, the employee is able to get the employer to pay his reasonable attorneys fees. If the employer wins, the employer is not able to recover fees from the employee. The employer may have EPL, or Employment Practices Liability, insurance, which will help absorb the cost of the legal fees and any damage payments. However, such policies often carry a large deductible, such as $250,000 per claim. If the case goes to trial the legal expenses of the Ducks will easily exceed $250,000.

There are a large number of questions regarding the liability of the Ducks in this matter. I don't have access to the facts, and often the facts are disputed or do not clearly answer every question. We are all going to have to wait and see how this plays out.

GreatBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 02:17 PM
  #18
Fighter
Soviet Duck
 
Fighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Trieste, Italy
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,904
vCash: 500
tl;dr.

IF true, bad move by the coach: racist remarks are unacceptable. But Mr Bailey wants to milk some money, that's it.

Fighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 02:47 PM
  #19
Kimi
Registered User
 
Kimi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Country: England
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatBear View Post
I go on vacation and this lawsuit breaks out, what fun. I have not read the Complaint since I just got back last night. However, since it appears that most of the comments is this discussion reflect a lack of knowledge of the law and the legal process, I feel that I can contribute to this discussion by giving a short summary of the law and how this case may proceed.

I apoligze in advance for typos and missing words. I have not the world's best proofreader, and I managed to get sick while on vacation. If I am not making any sense let me know and I will try and clarify what I have said.

There are US and California state laws against discrimination based upon a number of factors, including religion. Discrimination is considered to include harassment based upon a protected area, such as religion. The harassment can be from another employee of the employer, but does not need, in California, to be so. In California (and possibly other states, although I am most familiar with California law), the harassment can by a third party, such as a vendor, supplier or even a customer of the employer.

This California law explains why the Ducks can be sued for the alleged actions of the Bakersfield coach. The Ducks assigned or placed their employee in a position of having to be in contact with the coach, and thus had an obligation to protect their employee from harassment on the basis of religion from that coach.

An employer is required to not discriminate on the basis of religion and is required to take reasonable steps to prevent an employee from being harassed on the basis of these factors. These reasonable steps will generally include an internal investigation of the complaint and, if harassment is found, some sort of steps to protect the employee from harassment.

I am not aware of what investigation the Ducks undertook, but based upon the articles that I have read, it appears that they did some investigation. It also appears that the Ducks took some steps to protect the player based upon his complaints to them, but it is not completely clear what all of those were.

If an employee feels that he has been discriminated against or harassed based upon his/er religion, the employee is required to complain to his employer and give his employer an opportunity to take corrective action. The employee is then required to file a complaint regarding the harassment with either the EEOC or the appropriate state agency, in California the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

If not before, by the time that the complaint was filed with the federal or state agency, the Ducks would have involved their legal counsel. The Ducks legal counsel would do its own investigation of the facts and the law in order to prepare a response for the employment complaint with the federal or state agency. Unless the employee asked for an immediate right to sue, the Ducks would file a response to the employee's complaint with the governmental agency. The Ducks legal counsel would prepare and filed this response for the Ducks.

If the employee fails to file the complaint with the federal or state agency, the employee can not sue. If the employee files such a complaint the agency can do an investigation and reach results, or it can issue a "Right to Sue" letter based upon either its findings or a request by the employee to file litigation. It is not unusal for an employee to file a complaint with the EEOC or state and then immediately ask for a "Right to Sue" letter.

Once the employee has the right to sue, the employee's lawyer will file a Complaint, stating the cause of action. The defendant will then have the right to either file a Demurrer, which is essential a motion saying that the Complaint should be dismissed on legal grounds, or an Answer. If the defendant files a Demurrer and the court rules that the Complaint is sufficient to at least state some sort of cause against the defendant, then then the Defendant will file an Answer.

It is unusual for a court to completely throw out a case at this stage, since the court needs to assume that, at this point in time, everything alleged in the Complaint is true. However, there are times when a court will throw out part of the Complaint or order the employee to file a restated Complaint.

Because of all of the previous steps, the filing of a Complaint would not have been a surprise to the Ducks. Indeed, most of their work in developing the defense of the claim will already have been done.

One the Answer is filed the parties will engage in discovery, which is the taking of depositions, requesting documents and the like. Once discover is completed, either party can, and often does, file a Motion for Summary Judgement.

It is almost always the defendant employer that files such a motion in employment cases. The defendant's motion asks the court to rule that the eployee's case has no merit, and that as a matter of the facts developed in discovery the case should be won by the defendant.

Courts will sometimes grant these Motions for Summary Judgement. While the court is required to interprete all disputed facts in favor of the employee in the event that the employer files the motion, there are cases where a court will rule, based upon the facts, including disputed facts, that the defendant should win.

If the court denies the Motion for Summary Judgement the case will go to trial unless it is settled beforehand. In California the courts will almost certainly require both parties to go to mediation to attempt to settle the case before trial. In some cases the court will order many such mediation attempts.

In the event of a settlement the parties will probably agree to keep the settlement confidential. Thus, all we will hear is that the parties have resolved their differences and will proceed onward, without knowing what money, if any, was paid by the Ducks.

The trial, if there is one, will determine liability, if any, and damages if there is liability. The discussion of damages would include an extensive discussion of the ability of the player, the impact on the player, if any, of his ability to advance in professional hockey, and how, if at all, his ability to progress was impacted by the alleged harassment. The damages will also include an evaluation of the amount of distress suffered by the employee as a result of the alleged harassment.

Due to the budget situation in California the courts have had to slow the handling of these cases. It will probably take 2 - 3 years, at least, for this case to get to trial, from the filing of the Complaint. I would think 3 years would be a closer estimate.

In the event of a trial, the losing party will be liable for the "costs" of the case to the other party. These costs are not all costs entailed in the litigation, and do not include attorneys fees. Instead, the costs include such matters as filing fees, the cost of deposition transcripts and the like.

If the employee wins at trial, the employee is able to get the employer to pay his reasonable attorneys fees. If the employer wins, the employer is not able to recover fees from the employee. The employer may have EPL, or Employment Practices Liability, insurance, which will help absorb the cost of the legal fees and any damage payments. However, such policies often carry a large deductible, such as $250,000 per claim. If the case goes to trial the legal expenses of the Ducks will easily exceed $250,000.

There are a large number of questions regarding the liability of the Ducks in this matter. I don't have access to the facts, and often the facts are disputed or do not clearly answer every question. We are all going to have to wait and see how this plays out.
Just wanted to make sure this gets quoted at least once.

And I did read it, thanks for letting us know how this kind of stuff works.

Kimi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 04:24 PM
  #20
TheFlyingV
Anatidaephobia
 
TheFlyingV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,632
vCash: 500
The coach's actions were completely unacceptable and he deserves never to step foot in a hockey arena again. It amazes me that this guy still has a job. If the complaint it true they weren't just jokes he was indeed discriminating against him. BUT...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreatBear View Post
This California law explains why the Ducks can be sued for the alleged actions of the Bakersfield coach. The Ducks assigned or placed their employee in a position of having to be in contact with the coach, and thus had an obligation to protect their employee from harassment on the basis of religion from that coach.
^That is what changes my opinion on Bailey. I would have no problem with him if he was suing the coach/Bakersfield but because he is going to be able to use that to his advantage he is going to be able to sue the Ducks for more $$$. The Ducks put Bailey in the same situation that numerous other players have been and the coach singles him out for his religion. The blame should be all on the coach for being such a waste of oxygen.

TheFlyingV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2011, 06:56 PM
  #21
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,987
vCash: 500
Isn't Samueli Jewish? It's obvious that any anti-semitism would not be coming from the top.

Doesn't prevent there being pockets of it though.

I wonder if this contributed to the Ducks shifting out of Bakersfield and to Elmira?

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2011, 01:27 PM
  #22
SmackCrackleNPop
Registered User
 
SmackCrackleNPop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Stanton, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
Isn't Samueli Jewish? It's obvious that any anti-semitism would not be coming from the top.

Doesn't prevent there being pockets of it though.

I wonder if this contributed to the Ducks shifting out of Bakersfield and to Elmira?
Yeah, Samueli is Jewish. I'm sure he's not down with anti-semitism either. I would bet the Ducks knew of it but didn't take it seriously or just tried to resolve it quietly. That didn't work obviously.

SmackCrackleNPop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2011, 07:56 PM
  #23
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 55,019
vCash: 50
and the last thing you guys need to hear is that this made the news over here in the UK

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.