AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
- Status
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
They're not blameless. But they're $5,000 a day for years blameless. That lawsuit is ridiculous.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
You obviously don't know how lawyers and lawsuits work. Target the big fish. Start blame from Day 1. Negotiate when you are told that's ridiculous because that is ridiculous, agreed. This will get negotiated down a lot.
And lawyers fees are not cheap.
Again, attacking the victim for doing something you would want if your family was put through the ringer on something. CU is not blameless and why the report will not be made public until a settlement is released.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
Stumped me.
Kind of hard to know what level of culpability lies with CU based on the snippets of information leaked to the public. But, yeah, it is pretty certain CU didn't handle it well.
That lawyer is smart. He is getting the jury to think about the claims in terms of dollars per day. He opens at $5000 and when they get down to $2000, they are still awarding her over $1.2 million. And they think that amount is fair because they cut it in less than half.
Let's see: $3,700,000/$5,000 per day = 740 days. Not the 40 or so it took to fire him.
Another irony just struck me. If CU had fired him 740 days earlier, she'd have staid with him regardless, the abuse would've continued, but would have no one to sue for $3,700,000. He may even have been so pissed at losing his job, something worse may have happened.
Last edited:
Well, dammit son, 'splain yourself better! I figured that's what you meant.
Fair to whom? The taxpayers? If they had fired joe tumpkin before charges were formally filed then joe tumpkin could have sued for wrongful dismissal. An employer is not harming a victim of domestic violence by following due process before firing an employee with a contract, nor is an employer even allowed to discuss their internal disciplinary process with a non-employee, unless compelled by a court order.
If further information, verified information that is, comes to light that a university employee tried to get the victim to keep quiet, or tried to influence the police investigation in any way, or that Mike Mac knew about joe tumpkin being a woman beater before he said he did, or that the background check on joe tumpkin was botched when we hired him, then by all means try to settle. Otherwise, settling this lawsuit would be inviting more of the same for years to come, and as a taxpayer, i resent the idea that our public university should be paying our money to someone because we didnt use a crystal ball to see whether joe tumpkin would turn out to be a woman beater. And to anybody that thinks that settling will make this "go away," I would remind them that thats what hank brown thought when he settled the last major lawsuit concerning the AD.
It doesn't fit neatly into your option list, but the new information (at least it was new to me) in the BDC article today is the accusation that MacIntyre's assistant deleted an email from Tumpkin's victim without MacIntyre seeing the email. In the same article it quotes the lawsuit as saying that the assistant that secretly deleted the email was also in a "personal relationship" with Tumpkin.
Hi.O
Well-Known Member
I don't think about it being fair to anybody in particular, just fair given the situation.
I don't really want to re-hash all the details, but 'promoting' (without higher pay) Tumpkin was iffy, the dual role the Banashek guy played put us in an awkward spot in this case, and we seemed content to was their hands of the problem until the story made the headlines.
These are all things that we could clean up. If they had to do it over again, I suspect they would've put Tumpkin on paid leave.
Hi.O
Well-Known Member
If any of these things happened, that would just up the settlement amount, and get some people fired.
If we paid 200k, we wouldn't be paying her for our lack of foresight on day 1 on the Tumpkin hire, just for our bungled handling since the phone call.
I hope you're happy
We should be thanked for keeping him employed and away from her.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
What I fail to understand is how the lawyer stated JT abused her on CU property, at CU sanctioned events, and verbally through phone provided by CU. That because of this, it's CU's fault. CU did not know for the two years until she called Mac in December. By that statement, if I ever get a DUI and kill someone in a company car, the victim's family should go after my company instead of me because it is my employer's fault for providing me with the car. This just seems like an attempt to make a quick buck that probably came to fruition when this lawyer realized he could make a whole lot of money.
Look I agree that CU mishandled this. But they should be accountable from the time of when it was first reported to the coaches till when JT was fired. That being said, CU could only do so much. I don't agree with dismissing JT before any charges are brought up because that can open another situation up. But I do think he should not have been put in charge of the defense for the bowl game. CU needs to change policies overall with handling or domestic violence and sexual violence against non-university personnel/students.
Look I agree that CU mishandled this. But they should be accountable from the time of when it was first reported to the coaches till when JT was fired. That being said, CU could only do so much. I don't agree with dismissing JT before any charges are brought up because that can open another situation up. But I do think he should not have been put in charge of the defense for the bowl game. CU needs to change policies overall with handling or domestic violence and sexual violence against non-university personnel/students.
Last edited:
Deleted member 807
Guest
So what you are saying is that, in hindsight, after all legal fees, settlements, and negative impact to the brand, it would have been cheaper to bump Leavitt's salary to keep him in Boulder.
Or...maybe Leavitt was privy to Tumpkin's history of abuse and this big shot lawyer should also be filing a civil suit against Oregon and Nike?
Did Tumpkin abuse her after she reported it to Mac? If not I don't see how she has damages against CU.
They are just throwing everything they can at once to try and get as much money as possible, obviously it will be near impossible to prove a CU is responsible for all of this, including the pay going back two years but that is just how these things work.
How can you equate a women being physically beaten by a man for two years to you getting a DUI? How do you see yourself as an equivalent victim to her in this example?
Yeah, the lawsuit appears to be a clear money grab. Not sure how that makes all the creeps coming out of the woodwork.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
When did I bring up Leavitt? I just stated that it probably would have been better if JT stayed in the secondary, and Mac took over the defensive play calling.
I fail to see how she has cause for damages against CU for the two years she didn't report it.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Mac couldn't have taken over playcalling. He was on the Coach-of the-Year victory circuit and paying homage to his recently departed father in the process.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
So go after JT for the two years. I stated she should probably be compensated for the time when she first reported it to Mac till when JT was fired, it just seems absurd to go after damages for the time of two years when no one at CU knew this was going on.
CB17Cubed
Well-Known Member
If he couldn't, then give it to Jeffcoat. Don't give it to someone who has just been accused of domestic violence. Why? Because even if he is innocent, it's a huge PR disaster when everything comes out. I don't think JT should have been fired on the spot, I do believe in due-process, but CU could have handled this so much better.
- Status