Sometimes, I seriously wonder about our legal system. Well, maybe more than sometimes. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyCajun
I sure hope you guys win it.
Doc
Printable View
Sometimes, I seriously wonder about our legal system. Well, maybe more than sometimes. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyCajun
I sure hope you guys win it.
Doc
Quote:
<table bgcolor=#eaeaea> <td> <font color=#000000> <blockquote> <p align=justify>
An attorney for a former head football coach at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette told jurors Wednesday a sorry football program had begun to show promise when the coach was axed for racially discriminatory reasons.
Jerry Baldwin is seeking damages in a lawsuit alleging discrimination and breach of contract.
The lawsuit, filed in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, names as defendants the university, the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System and the university’s athletic director, Nelson Schexnayder.
Baldwin’s attorney, G. Karl Bernard, said the coach inherited a bankrupt program with few quality athletes and poor equipment and university officials did little to help him turn the program into a success.
In the end, Baldwin lost his job because the officials did not want a black man as head coach, the attorney claimed.
Bernard’s comments came during the trial’s closing arguments late Wednesday afternoon.
State District Judge Don Johnson will instruct the jurors on the law today, then deliberations should begin in the weeklong racial discrimination trial.
UL officials fired Baldwin in 2001 after three years as coach.
University attorney Steve Oats told jurors that Baldwin was fired because the football program was not progressing.
During Baldwin’s three seasons, the teams had a record of 6-27.
<center><p><a href="http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/10623212.html?showAll=y&c=y" target="_blank">The rest of the story</a>
By ADRIAN ANGELETTE
Advocate staff writer
<!--
“Coaches know they need to win,” Oats said.
Oats also said it is unfair to claim university officials were practicing racial discrimination when they fired Baldwin.
Oats said the same officials hired Baldwin as the first black head football coach at a major Louisiana university.
“We’re not saying Jerry Baldwin didn’t do anything at the university,” Oats said.
“We’re not saying Jerry Baldwin is a bad guy.”
Oats urged jurors to not let emotions enter into their decision.
“You don’t have to agree with their decision,” Oats said. “You have to decide (whether) it was based on race.”
Bernard, on the other hand, told jurors he does not think the officials who chose to fire the coach are racists; however, he said, they made a racist decision.
Bernard said by the end of Baldwin’s third season, attendance at games was up, the quality of players was improved and Baldwin was caught by surprise by the firing.
Bernard also said steps were taken by officials to make sure Baldwin did not succeed.
Bernard said Baldwin was forced to work with used equipment and the marketing director for the football program was fired during Baldwin’s second season and not replaced.
A previous coach, Nelson Stokley, had a television show and improved weight room while Baldwin was not given a television show and there were no weight room improvements.
Bernard urged jurors to compare how Baldwin was treated to how white coaches before and after him were treated.
The trial took place only after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal intervened.
In 2005, state District Judge Don Johnson threw out the lawsuit and said the termination was not illegal.
A 1st Circuit panel earlier this year ruled that the facts alleged by Baldwin and UL are open to different interpretations and therefore it is up to a jury to decide whether there was a legal problem with the firing.
Baldwin is seeking damages for breach of contract and emotional distress.
Since his firing, Baldwin has worked as pastor at New Living Word Ministries in Ruston.
-->
</td> </table>
LOL!!! If we could win this thread wouldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by McNeese72
Where did you get that piece of information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine
If baldwin was such a good coach, why isnt he coaching anywhere....anywhere since being let go from UL?
maybe we can hire RC?
UL must not be the only racist university out there. I smell a class action.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaginFan
It's a conspiracy!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rhineaux
It's a conspiracy!!!!
It's a conspiracy!!!!
UL won't hire him and he's now personna non grata in the coaching ranks!!
Sue 'em all Baldwin, sue 'em all. :p
Why aren't all these D1A programs knocking down Baldwin's door?
Can't someone give him a chance?:D
He'll do for their program what he did for ours!;)
I'm still trying to figure out how it went to court. Isn't there a statute of limitations that has probably expired a long time ago?
If the judge is Liberal, Baldwin probably wins.
If not, UL probably wins.
pretty simple
Unfortunately this is a jury trial. Although I'm at a loss as to how it is a jury trial because plaintiffs do not have a right to a jury in actions against the state and its subdivisions. La. R.S. 13:5105.Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNation
I just re-read the 1st Circuit's decision that allowed the trial to go forward. Apparently, its the following facts that the court thought included some discrimatory intent:
1 we did not have a marketing director or a fundraising guru after Baldwin year 1
2 we hired a marketing director and a fundraiser for Bustle.
That's it. Its a G-d d-mn catch 22.
If we don't hire a marketing director (some one tell me who this is?) or a fundraiser (I assume this is Gerald Hebert) we suck even worse but Baldwin has no case.
But if we do make these hires, its not because it'll benefit the program, its because we wanted to keep the Rev. Plaintiff down.
Bull____!!
Here's what the court said:
The facts asserted by both Mr. Baldwin and ULL are open to different interpretations. For example, different motives can be attributed to the decision not to hire another marketing director during Mr. Baldwin's tenure as head coach, allegedly for financial reasons, and the hiring of a marketing director and fundraiser shortly after Mr. Baldwin was removed. The decision could be seen as an indirect method of weakening Mr. Baldwin's attempts to improve support for the team, or may have been a totally financial decision. Similarly, the testimony on the number of variables used by the school in grading the team's performance other than the win/loss record, and the reliance on "money games" as well as the sale of game tickets to improve the budget, could cast doubt on the legitimacy of two of the bases given by ULL for Mr. Baldwin's removal. On the other hand, after the trial court makes various credibility determinations, ULL's decision to remove Mr. Baldwin from his duties as head coach may be found to have a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis. Also, even though a former coach was alerted to the school's concerns and given an opportunity to improve, the failure to alert Mr. Baldwin to ULL's dissatisfaction with the football program's progress may have no basis in discrimination. However, if the disparate treatment was a decision based on discrimination, it is unlawful. In summary, these inquiries, which require credibility decisions and determinations of reasonableness of conduct, and motive and intent, are not ripe for summary judgment.