I also heard that his wife had little interest in living in Pennsylvania. She was very happy at Vanderbilt, but that feeling didn't continue once the family moved to State College. For the record, I have also heard Mrs. Franklin is not in love with State College and certainly does not make a lot of attempts at public showings and the like. Not to say she should be obligated to, but she does not share Sue Paterno's commitment to the school/community. Who knows though, just a rumor a heard, i take it with a grain of salt.
Bob Shoop owes PSU $891,856
- Thread starter ChiTownLion
- Start date
I also heard that his wife had little interest in living in Pennsylvania. She was very happy at Vanderbilt, but that feeling didn't continue once the family moved to State College. For the record, I have also heard Mrs. Franklin is not in love with State College and certainly does not make a lot of attempts at public showings and the like. Not to say she should be obligated to, but she does not share Sue Paterno's commitment to the school/community. Who knows though, just a rumor a heard, i take it with a grain of salt.
Again, don't disagree with any of that (and in regard to employment contracts of all stripe, not just College Coaches), but it's hard to guess exactly what the contract says given that the termination clause language was merely intended as a "poison pill" to hedge the guaranteed term (I doubt this situation was really anticipated). It still potentially comes down to PSU's response to Shoop when he asked for permission to speak with UTenn before UTenn had offered anything. Whatever Franklin's response was to Shoop, I think you have to assume it was handed down from Barbour (just as it was a year earlier in regards to LSU & Shoop). If they told Shoop he was free to speak with UTenn if he wished, but threatened him with termination if his decision was to do so....PSU can't claim that Shoop initiated the termination imo.
Last edited:
There's not another Sue Paterno on any other college campus anywhere in the USA. Sue's continuing dedication and commitment to PSU for well over half a century has set the bar so high it's not even visible.
I don't think that threatening someone with termination is sufficient to trigger clauses in a contract; I think that termination has to occur. Was Shoop given notice that he was fired sometime between his interview at UTk and his announcement that he was going to take a job there? If not, his case is far from a slam-dunk.
Did she get nude pics from McQueary?
Yea, I hear you, but it is also equally murky if he never gave PSU a formal resignation letter.... As I understand it based on PSU's press statement, Shoop's contract reads that a "liquidation payment" is due if he "resigns from his contract" prior to term - see link below:
Now if Shoop said that he wanted to go down and speak with UTenn (just as he had done a year earlier with LSU) and PSU told him that he was free to go speak with UTenn if he so chose, BUT if he did so he should consider himself fired.....then he may well have never formally resigned from PSU as he was just told that his act of merely deciding to visit UTenn to hear what they had to say, if anything, was a "fire-able offense" as far as PSU was concerned directly from PSU via their HR Channel (and PSU had aggressively terminated the OC before the end of their "guaranteed contract" only weeks earlier). So if he relied on their formal response when he asked for permission to talk to UTenn and never handed in a "formal resignation" because he considered himself fired (i.e., he did make the trip to UTenn after this conversation), there's no way you can say he "resigned his position" as the contract terms require for PSU to collect in their favor.
If there is no resignation document from Shoop or a termination notification from PSU, the first thing I'd look at are PSU's payroll records. If he was only paid through the date of his interview with UTk, that would be telling. If he were paid through some date thereafter, that's another matter.
My guess is that we'll likely never know. PSU and Shoop will settle for a number that UTk will pick up........if he has a good season. If the Vols defense is mediocre or worse, he's ****ed.
Yea, no doubt.... Was a little surprised PSU didn't attach UTenn to the original suit as I'm sure PSU could make the case that UTenn was a party to the suit once they decided to put him under contract knowing full well that he was under exclusive contract to another party already (most employers in this situation imo - i.e., UTenn's position - would ask Shoop for a copy of his contract prior to hiring him so they could "review it", if he represented that he was under contract to PSU, but PSU had just ended the contract via termination).
Except that someone can be fired effective immediately and resignations usually require notice. So if PSU paid Shoop for X days beyond his announcement and X conforms to the notice required under the contract....draw your own conclusions, butthead.
You're a tad too sensitive if you've put me on "ignore", but if so.....no worries. I can still "see" what you post.
Agree. I think a certain "someone" has politely communicated with "salsa dancer" to cut-out the "religious shenanigans"
Former defensive coordinator counters Penn State suit, claims ‘intolerable’ work environment
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article159951054.html[/QUOTE]
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article159951054.html[/QUOTE]
Signed his contract under durress? How does that happen?[/QUOTE]
Sounds odd. I've heard of cases and claims of people being forced to sign non competes as a condition of continued employment, and they have been voided as being signed under durress, but not a contract. Dont like it? Dont sign it. Leave..
[/QUOTE]
Well there you have it "all knowing and all genius Oz", the article explicitly states that Shoop was terminated and his pay was discontinued effective immediately and he was not paid beyond his visit to UTenn (i.e., his last month) when the PSU HR Dept via the AD said he would be terminated if he ended up deciding to speak with UTenn (i.e., the threatened ultimatum PSU gave him if he decided to visit UTenn and listen to what they had to say). I highly doubt PSU is collecting anything here as they have to show that Shoop terminated the contract for "liquidated damages" to apply, not that they terminated Shoop for a "not for cause" reason.
Well there you have it "all knowing and all genius Oz", the article explicitly states that Shoop was terminated and his pay was discontinued effective immediately and he was not paid beyond his visit to UTenn (i.e., his last month) when the PSU HR Dept via the AD said he would be terminated if he ended up deciding to speak with UTenn (i.e., the threatened ultimatum PSU gave him if he decided to visit UTenn and listen to what they had to say). I highly doubt PSU is collecting anything here as they have to show that Shoop terminated the contract for "liquidated damages" to apply, not that they terminated Shoop for a "not for cause" reason.[/QUOTE]
What else would Shoop say?
Amazing...Penn State just can't stay out of law suits! I am surprised PSU is pushing this. And Shoop's lawyering, the issue of being "under duress" is a non-starter. From what I know, you are presented with an employment contract. If you don't want to sign it, your option is to simply leave employment and go someplace else. Working conditions and the like are simply non-starters in court. His law suit is just to embarrass PSU into settling. But it won't get passed summary judgement. He signed a contract, I mean, try to fight Apple's or Microsoft's use condition contract and see how far you get.
Well there you have it "all knowing and all genius Oz", the article explicitly states that Shoop was terminated and his pay was discontinued effective immediately and he was not paid beyond his visit to UTenn (i.e., his last month) when the PSU HR Dept via the AD said he would be terminated if he ended up deciding to speak with UTenn (i.e., the threatened ultimatum PSU gave him if he decided to visit UTenn and listen to what they had to say). I highly doubt PSU is collecting anything here as they have to show that Shoop terminated the contract for "liquidated damages" to apply, not that they terminated Shoop for a "not for cause" reason.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, dipstick, once again your problems with reading comprehension get in the way. From my post above:
"f there is no resignation document from Shoop or a termination notification from PSU, the first thing I'd look at are PSU's payroll records. If he was only paid through the date of his interview with UTk, that would be telling."
"Telling" in this case means that it would indicate immediate termination.
So Shoop maintains he was terminated without cause. Now he has to prove it. And if he can, then PSU and its lawyers are dumber than you are.
What else would Shoop say?[/QUOTE]
So you're saying he was paid his outstanding wages due (which usually includes unused vacation, etc...) in this case cited as a month (i.e., $75K is 1/12th of 900K and the article cites the PSU HR Dept as saying One Month would potentially be due)??? I'm confused, I'm sure these pay stubs exist and I wouldn't think Shoop's lawyer is silly enough to say he wasn't paid if in actuality he was paid (which again is easily provable one-way or the other).
Shoop's lawyer is saying precisely what I guessed without knowledge of this article, but that makes me "dumb" - whatever you say small-richard, eeerrrr, I mean "Oz". LMFAO! BTW, genius Oz, I highly doubt Shoop's lawyer is going to say easily confirmed pay-stubs one-way or the other weren't made if they were, in actuality, made - unless of course he's as dumb as you and PSU's lawyers and HR department.....
Last edited:
I also wouldn't think PSU is silly enough to pursue this if the pay stubs don't exist.
Something else is going on, or someone is going to look stupid. Or both.
I also wouldn't think PSU is silly enough to pursue this if the pay stubs don't exist.
Something else is going on, or someone is going to look stupid. Or both.[/QUOTE]
My understanding, but who knows as I don't have a copy of his contract:
- shoop hired, asked to sign a contract after he was hired (and hadn't agreed to originally)
- contract contains certain covenants. One was he had to repay payments if he left and two that he could not interview.
- he interviews, PSU terminates him for, in their opinion, "cause".
- PSU goes after the repayment.
- Shoop claims he had to sign the contract "under duress" and that he was terminated for no cause other than the contract he was forced to sign under duress.
That is my best guess with just a little inside information.
His lawyers are following the common tactic of throwing a lot of shit in the air in the hope that enough of it sticks to the ceiling. I agree that most of it won't. The notion of termination without cause becomes problematic, though. If a) there is no letter of resignation submitted by Shoop; b) there is something in his contract that indicates that he has to give X days of notice (and be paid for that time) to resign; and c) he wasn't paid for those days of notice given then he might have a case. On the other hand, the courts might look past that and say "You (Shoop) announced that you were leaving PSU and taking the UTk job and, unless you can prove that someone from PSU held a gun to your head to make you do that, you resigned."
So how much confidence do we have in PSU's lawyers?
My understanding, but who knows as I don't have a copy of his contract:
- shoop hired, asked to sign a contract after he was hired (and hadn't agreed to originally)
- contract contains certain covenants. One was he had to repay payments if he left and two that he could not interview.
- he interviews, PSU terminates him for, in their opinion, "cause".
- PSU goes after the repayment.
- Shoop claims he had to sign the contract "under duress" and that he was terminated for no cause other than the contract he was forced to sign under duress.
That is my best guess with just a little inside information.[/QUOTE]
Don't think your first point would be considered "duress." The contract under consideration is the one he signed in January 2015 after PSU gave him a major salary boost to keep him from going to LSU. Entirely possible that this contract contained clauses that his original one didn't, but PSU could argue that those were in exchange for the additional compensation (i.e. protecting its investment).
Language preventing or penalizing him from/for interviewing is potentially unconscionable (see 13th Amendment). Usually the only thing that flies is a requirement to provide notice of interviewing. Requiring permission is usually a no-no. Citing it as cause for termination is probably worse.
According to Press Sources the Contract Calls for "Liquidated Damages" if either party terminates "not for cause" (i.e., that is not a "Non-Compete Clause" - in order for a "Non-Compete Clause" to be binding, the other party must be specifically compensated for the Non-Compete.....IOW, paid specifically not to even speak with anyone else over the term which was not done here. Simply visiting the State of Tennessee and UTenn is not a "for cause" termination item when you don't have a "Non-Compete Clause" - i.e., you aren't paying the other party a payment specifically to not even speak with anyone else on a professional basis.). However, Shoop is not going to be entitled to "Liquidated Damages" either though as I just looked it up and his Wikipedia page says he was hired by UTenn on 1/9/2016, so he really did not incur any damages (i.e., "lost wages") as it appears UTenn began paying him immediately, at the same time when PSU terminated him effective immediately for the "not for cause" infraction of going to Tennessee who had asked him to come visit. Again, that is not a "fireable" offense if PSU was not paying him under an exclusive "Non-Compete" clause for his services over the entire span - at least that is the case in most states (Labor Law is governed at State-Level, not at National-Level.). Had Shoop gone to UTenn and accepted an offer from them after visiting and listening to what they wanted to visit about......and then submitted a resignation to PSU.......THEN PSU would be entitled to "Liquidated Damages" from Shoop's "not for cause" Resignation, but that is not what it sounds like happened here - PSU preemptively fired him effective immediately for something that is not "for cause" without a specific "Non-Compete over Term" Agreement in place.
Shoop is a loser no matter how this turns out. First, it's pretty much a give that UTk won't pick up diddly if he loses in court (they may give him a certain amount of money to offer to PSU to make this go away, but who knows?). Second, any future employer is going to think long and hard about signing a guy who welshed on a standard contract term. Mother****er better walk on water.
I wish someone would force me to sign a $1.5 million contract.
Many brokerages have upgraded General Mills, the maker of Fiber One, to a "Buy."
Unless they are specifically compensating him for the "Non-Compete Agreement" - in most States, outright "Non-Competes" are only enforceable if there is corresponding "Consideration" from the Employer (i.e., Specified Separate Payment and lots of it for Non-Compete over entire term); otherwise, it is looked at as a voidable "Contract by Adhesion" where the Employer (writer, and dictator, of said contract) is being grossly unreasonable with the Employee and attempting to prevent them from making a living without compensating them (i.e., "Contractual Consideration" for same). But Labor Law is State-by-State, so it is not homogeneous on all these topics I don't believe, but I think most States are pretty consistent on this topic though. If PSU did not have a bonafide "Non-Compete" in place, terminating Shoop for simply visiting the State of Tennessee is not a "for cause" contract offense.
Last edited:
The "force part" is only referring to signing a defacto "Non-Compete Provision" without "Contractual Consideration" - in most States, when an Employer does this, it is a "voidable Contract Clause made by Adhesion" regardless of what it says (and the reason it is "voidable" is because the Employer is not paying the Employee any "Contractual Consideration" for the very clearly onerous and valuable term and condition).
Last edited:
