Somebody has to Pay

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I thought the same thing about that, but I guess that's a signal from her lawyer to Jeff's that he's prepared to fight with flamethrowers.

[Gwreck]

Edgy MD wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there.

I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that.

This case is in the Eastern District of New York, which draws a jury pool from Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk and Richmond Counties. There aren't going to be a lot of jurors with neutral or favorable opinions of Jeff Wilpon in those areas.

[Ceetar]

Gwreck wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that. This case is in the Eastern District of New York, which draws a jury pool from Kings, Queens, Nassau, Suffolk and Richmond Counties. There aren't going to be a lot of jurors with neutral or favorable opinions of Jeff Wilpon in those areas.

If anything, that statement detracts from her lawsuit. It seems to suggest that she DIDN'T succeed and is an argument that it was an impossible job. Might be hard to prove that the harassment was the reason she was let go, though the harassment in it of itself is enough for a lawsuit I would think. Which I think is what Edgy was getting at? That if it's a harassment lawsuit it's not really about her job performance.

[Guest themetfairy]

The retaliation claim will be particularly hard to defend against, given that they fired her three minutes after learning that she had retained counsel.

[ashie62]

That alleged behavior by Jeff Wilpon is hard for me to believe; but I thought Ray Rice was a nice guy.

[Gwreck]

Ceetar wrote: It seems to suggest that she DIDN'T succeed and is an argument that it was an impossible job. Might be hard to prove that the harassment was the reason she was let go, though the harassment in it of itself is enough for a lawsuit I would think. Which I think is what Edgy was getting at? That if it's a harassment lawsuit it's not really about her job performance.

The point is that she was given a difficult job but the Mets thought she was succeeding at it (for example, earning her bonuses).

Her job performance is of course relevant to a harassment lawsuit. Her complaint brings it up to reinforce that there was no legitimate reason to fire her.

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that.

I don't care what people said and thought. How is the fact that the Mets don't win enough actionable? If it is, I'm filing tomorrow.

OE: I see, you're saying it helps establish that she was effective at her job. OK. Maybe.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: The part about her job being hard because the Mets didn't sign free agents and it was like being on the Titanic --- that's egregious padding, and it shouldn't be there. I disagree. The deck chairs on the Titanic quote might have been a bit much, but I'm sure her attorneys would have no problem proving any number of people she's never met both said that and thought that. I don't care what people said and thought. How is the fact that the Mets don't win enough actionable? If it is, I'm filing tomorrow. OE: I see, you're saying it helps establish that she was effective at her job. OK. Maybe.

It either helps establish she was effective or is an excuse for why she wasn't. I think what she's trying to establish is that her superiors actively inhibited her ability to do her job. But this feels like an HR person complaining that the company switched from PAYCHEX to ADP and it's not as good. Who really knows (well, hopefully someone that has to testify) what they discussed about her job and duties when they hired her. But generally ticket sales are separate from roster, despite what people like to think. Leigh was never supposed to go to Sandy and say "Hey, I'd like to do "so and so" promotion, can you sign someone that fits that profile?"

[bmfc1]

Ceetar is right. Her attorney is establishing her credibility--she was good at her job--and discrediting the inevitable argument that she wasn't by discussing the obstacles that she faced (trying to sell tickets to a bad team).

[Edgy MD]

�We have received and reviewed the complaint. The claims are without merit. Our organization maintains strong policies against any and all forms of discrimination.�

[Guest d'Kong76]

[fimg=400:3knveh7w]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8KoaXEw6vxI/Tsn3n2fQ9jI/AAAAAAAAAFw/d_XK4LevcnM/s1600/2+shrug.jpg[/fimg:3knveh7w]
.
[bigpurple:3knveh7w]Case closed![/bigpurple:3knveh7w]

[G-Fafif]

I wasn't envisioning all this a couple of weeks ago, but when her departure was leaked (nothing was ever officially announced), two things stuck with me in the rush to pin the LOL tail on the Wilpons:

1) Why was something like the dismissal/departure of a senior vp of ticket sales leaked? I mean, who knew who she was outside of the really obsessive Mets fans and maybe season ticketholders?

2) The scapegoating explanation seemed unlikely. The Mets don't fire managers or coaches for lousy records, why would they suddenly decide to kick out the head of ticket sales for empty seats with a month to go in the season?

Just figured something wasn't adding up. Didn't think it added up to Jeff Wilpon allegedly being more of an actionable jerk than usual (but is that part really surprising?).

Reading the part of the complaint that outlines how (allegedly) badly the Mets were run in terms of letting go marquee players and F. Wilpon gave the New Yorker incendiary quotes running down his own product, plus how much they were inflating ticket prices, is reminiscent of the "Grimey" episode of The Simpsons. That's the one in which new power plant employee Frank Grimes is dropped into Springfield and is instantly taken aback that someone as chock full of foibles as Homer Simpson is still alive, keeping a good job and maintaining a pretty decent lifestyle. Grimes isn't part of the Springfield tableau, so he's incredulous at what everyone else in town takes for granted.

As Mets fans, we're used to all this. Yet you can't help but step back for a moment after reading the complaint and think, "Say, Fred did tell a reporter how little he thought of his best players, they did usher Reyes and Dickey out the door at the heights of their respective accomplishments and tickets were disgustingly overpriced...how do they still own this team again?"

[batmagadanleadoff]

An early analysis of the The Mets Suck allegations contained in the Leigh Castergine complaint. Plus Madoff stuff.

Discrimination suit poses multiple threats to Jeff Wilpon
By Howard Megdal 8:02 a.m. | Sep. 11, 2014 1 follow this reporter

Former Mets senior vice president of ticket sales Leigh Castergine has filed a sexual discrimination complaint against Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon, alleging that Wilpon "frequently humiliated" her during her pregnancy, often in the presence of witnesses, and ultimately fired her for seeking a remedy with the team's human resources department. The Mets issued a statement responding to the allegations which said, "The claims are without merit. Our organization maintains strong policies against any and all forms of discrimination." The complaint comes as Wilpon and his family seek to stabilize their finances and their hold on the team. It also happens to be hitting the news in the wake of Donald Sterling's forced exit as owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Bruce Levenson selling his share of the Atlanta Hawks, means Wilpon's actions are going to be discussed within the framework of another league seeing multiple owners depart over questions of discrimination. Merits aside, the complaint seems designed to take advantage of this, as well as the Wilpon family's involvement in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi schemes, and their subsequent public mistatements about the state of their own and the team's finances. At one point, the complaint says, "Moreover, the team has been unable to acquire premier talent, in part, because of its serious financial woes. ...The Team's ownership and front office have only made things worse. For example, Mets executives persisted in publicly denying the Team's financial difficulties despite the obvious freefall in player payroll ... each season, the Mets' front office insisted that the team had the ability to spend money on new players, only to see payroll drop even further." Castergine is a Wharton-educated businesswoman who received a promotion from the Mets just prior to her pregnancy. She could be a tricky opponent in a courtroom, and she's certain to be a problematic opponent for Wilpon and the Mets in the public eye. That leaves the question of exactly why this case didn't settle before Castergine filed. A two-week period offered the chronological opportunity, and multiple attorneys I spoke to described it as extremely unlikely that Anne C. Vladeck, the decorated, top-shelf attorney representing Castergine (sort of an anti-Gloria Allred), would have proceeded without attempting a settlement. It is of course possible that Wilpon has a solid, factual defense. But cases have often been settled in spite of this, particularly when the defendant is an owner in the litigation-averse world of Major League Baseball. Another possibility is that Castergine is asking for more money than Wilpon, the son of Mets owner Fred Wilpon, is capable of paying. The statutes under which the suit was filed do not carry with them caps on damages. And with Castergine seeking not just compensatory damages but punitive damages, a jury that found Wilpon liable would be instructed to set out an amount commensurate with what he can pay, and one designed to sting. Remember, this is still the same family that managed to settle with Irving Picard, trustee for the Bernie Madoff victims, because they were out of funds back in 2012. Since then, they've managed to stay afloat largely by borrowing against the skyrocketing equity in their 65 percent stake in S.N.Y., using the local sports television network boom to stave off bankruptcy. But borrowing further against that to pay off a potential sexual discrimination lawsuit, doing so quickly, and in time to avoid a lawsuit is not easy. Nor is any insurer they have to cover such events likely to be sympathetic to a quick resolution, avoiding any further damage to Wilpon's reputation. Said insurer wouldn't much care what happens to Wilpon's public standing. It is also possible that this is about more than the possibility of monetary damages. Certainly, the complaint signals that the plaintiff is also well aware of the power of the allegations to affect the Wilpons in the court of public opinion, as well as their standing in the league. The fact that these are still only allegations means that unlike the secret tape and elevator video that forced the N.B.A. and N.F.L. to take action against a racist owner and wife-beating star player, respectively, Major League Baseball isn't yet compelled to do anything. But it faces a potential crisis should it not even try to determine whether a team owner acted as Castergine alleges Wilpon did. Failing to investigate the matter fully, at least, is going to look awful within the public context of N.F.L. commissioner Roger Goodell's actions after the league was sent a tape of Rice knocking his fiancee unconscious and dragging her out of an elevator. The structure of the lawsuit itself, too, makes potential league actions more complicated. As a veteran attorney in sexual discrimination matters explained it, by pointing out how many other people in the organization�such as chief financial officer Lou DiPaoli and chief counsel David Cohen�allegedly failed to act, it poses a threat not just to Jeff Wilpon but to the collective management of the New York Mets. Figuring all this out, for now, is Bud Selig, who is commissioner of baseball until January. In 2014, the conversation has been about Selig's legacy, something clearly important to him. The extent to which the Mets have been gutted, as part of his legacy, is both seldom talked about publicly, and something acutely understood by both the team's fan base and most of Wilpon's fellow owners. But if Jeff Wilpon lacks the cash to make this go away, or Leigh Castergine decides she wants more than cash for it to happen, then Bud Selig will have to make a decision about whether to let one of his owners go to trial, or to do whatever he can to prevent that from happening. Should the proceedings extend beyond January, and Selig punts, new commissioner Rob Manfred will have the opportunity to weigh in. Manfred, whose first public appearance after winning the job of commissioner-elect was to watch Mo'ne Davis pitch, will be acutely aware of what his actions in this matter will tell the public about him. The state of the Wilpons, as owners, wasn't great before the lawsuit. The team's debt of more than $600 million against their ownership stake in S.N.Y. comes due next year. It either needs to be paid, which obviously can't happen, or re-financed the way the $250 million debt against the team was this past year. That would also need to be approved by Major League Baseball. Back in 2011, Selig nixed a potential deal between wayward Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and Fox for the Dodgers' television rights, citing concern over the "further diversion of Dodgers assets for the personal needs of Mr. McCourt." By contrast, Selig approved the re-finance of Mets team debt in 2014, and it was widely expected the same would be true of Manfred with the 2015 S.N.Y. debt. One who clearly expected it was Fred Wilpon, who forcefully advocated for Manfred during a contentious election battle last month before crowing about Manfred's election in the owner-sympathetic Daily News. But it was Selig and Wilpon who shared a long history together. Expecting more of the same from Manfred was less about that relationship and more about not knowing what level of unseemliness would have to become public before he's moved to make a change.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/09/8552336/discrimination-suit-poses-multiple-threats-jeff-wilpon

[Edgy MD]

My current thinking is that this isn't the type of action that ends in a courtroom, but the type that ends in a settlement and a non-disclosure agreement. And that maybe hopes for the Mets won't be relieved of their owners, but rather continue on with a wearier version of the same, and a more tarnished brand.

This thinking could change by the end of the day or the hour.

[Lefty Specialist]

It's all speculation of course, but if Castergine knew exactly what to ask for in damages so that the Wilpons couldn't settle it immediately, then well played indeed.

Bernie Madoff, the gift that keeps on giving.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Edgy MD wrote: My current thinking is that this isn't the type of action that ends in a courtroom, but the type that ends in a settlement

Unless the Mets have a Jeffie-is-an-ass Contingency Fund,
there goes the increased budget for 2015.

[Edgy MD]

How much is the suit demanding?

[Guest d'Kong76]

I don't think there was an actual figure in there.

[bmfc1]

There is no demand. I am surprised that the Wilpons didn't settle but maybe they didn't have the money or maybe they think that they can't win.

[Diamond Dad]

While you should never take the allegations in a complaint as if they are true, in this case much of what is alleged here either seems like it might be true and sounds plausible for Jeff. But the very fact that they fired a senior female employee just a few months after she returned from Maternity leave, allegedly for poor job performance, is a historically stupid thing to do. Even if none of the other allegations were true, this would be very bad and any employment lawyer would advise against it.

But, the reality is that they will probably settle the case and there will be no changes in management. I doubt that this is the kind of case that will result in Fred firing his kid.

[Centerfield]

Diamond Dad wrote: But the very fact that they fired a senior female employee just a few months after she returned from Maternity leave, allegedly for poor job performance, is a historically stupid thing to do. Even if none of the other allegations were true, this would be very bad and any employment lawyer would advise against it.

Yup. And unless they have a series of negative reviews on record preceding this firing, I would say it's even historicallier stupider.

[MFS62]

Now that there's a new commissioner, he may not be as friendly to the Wilpons as the one who looked the other way at their Ponzi involvement and then gave them money to make up for their "losses". This harassment scandal and lawsuit could be the oiling of the slippery slope that Anti-Wilpon fans been waiting for.

Later

[Edgy MD]

There isn't a new commissioner yet.

As noted above, Manred enjoyed Wilpon's support in ascending to his new office.

Beyond that, has anyone --- even Irving Picard --- asserted that Bud Selig was aware that the Wilpons were investing in a Ponzi scheme?

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: But the very fact that they fired a senior female employee just a few months after she returned from Maternity leave, allegedly for poor job performance, is a historically stupid thing to do. Even if none of the other allegations were true, this would be very bad and any employment lawyer would advise against it. Yup. And unless they have a series of negative reviews on record preceding this firing, I would say it's even historicallier stupider.

Likely they'll cite ticket sales, or other data from this season.

Likely nothing will change, we'll get no real truth on that matter but will all suspect Jeff's a misogynistic asshole.

What they should probably do, irregardless of what happens with the suit, is publicly push forward a gender equality program. make female employees pay match male employees pay and publicize that fact (not the salaries obviously) and institute a matching paternity/maternity leave program that favors taking care of our kids and not rewarding men for not doing so and punishing women for doing so.

What they'll probably do: paint something pink and have a Woman's right charity host a promotion next year.

[Guest themetfairy]

Hey - who is that handsome man who decided to pay us a visit?

[Centerfield]

My real name is Ja...

Oh, you meant him. Right. That would make more sense.

[Guest themetfairy]

You're quite handsome as well CF, but I see you here all the time

[Lefty Specialist]

Ceetar wrote: What they'll probably do: paint something pink and have a Woman's right charity host a promotion next year.

They'll up the the donation per win from $2500 to $3000 for the Katz Institute for Women's Health, and call it a day.

[Edgy MD]

Dumb question, but the Katz Institute for Women's Health --- is that Katz as in Saul Katz?

[Gwreck]

Named in honor of Saul and Iris Katz, indeed.