[teejers1]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

I am not assuming anything - that Stanford acted wisely or unwisely, prudently, or pansy-assedly.  

I would be very surprised, however, if a football player actually filed a lawsuit against a coach, or a university, due to said coach pulling out his junk in the locker room.  But hey, in this day and age, I suppose anything is possible.

[teejers1]

Turley was definitely a linchpin of the program.  His departure was a tremendous loss.  That said, since I do not know what happened, I cannot judge whether his termination was justified (or whether it was a pure overreaction on the part of the university).  Suffice it to say: his absence has been felt, and Colorado is likely to become a whole lot tougher.

I agree with this completely.

We can be sure that Colorado vetted the reason for his termination at Stanford and was comfortable hiring him. This probably falls into one of those many grey areas where the current employer had to terminate, or risk being seen as unresponsive to the complaint (and subsequent lawsuits, etc.), but the next employer could be comfortable giving him another shot.

I wouldn't assume it was a super minor offense.  It took Turley two years to land somewhere else, despite his sterling credentials.  Most people in these situations deserve another shot, just not with the same employer.

What lawsuits?  I doubt there were any filed; nor could I imagine one being filed.  Indeed, if the complaint was lawsuit-worthy, then it would have been filed regardless of Turley's status.  Did that happen?

If it did, I'm unaware of it.  Are you aware of that happening, or are you just making assumptions based on . . . what? . . . the society we now live in?

I was speaking generally about one reason why organizations terminate employees that did something inappropriate or irresponsible.  If the organization doesn’t take action, they worry that the complainant is more likely to sue them or make a bigger stink.  And the concern is valid because the damages go way up in that scenario.  That’s all - it’s not a news flash.  Happens every day in corporate America. 

I’m reacting to the earlier claim that it should take a felony to get fired if you’re a good football coach. That’s completely untrue in any other profession. The vast majority of involuntary non-performance related terminations aren’t crimes at all, but that doesn’t mean the organization should not take action. I would not automatically assume that Stanford acted irresponsibly unless you actually know what happened.  

It can be simultaneously true that Stanford acted wisely, the offense as a one-off wasn’t all that bad, and the guy deserves and has received another shot (but not at Stanford).

I am not assuming anything - that Stanford acted wisely or unwisely, prudently, or pansy-assedly.  

I would be very surprised, however, if a football player actually filed a lawsuit against a coach, or a university, due to said coach pulling out his junk in the locker room.  But hey, in this day and age, I suppose anything is possible.