cobra14

September 28th, 2023 at 6:26 AM ^

Here is what I can add. A student in the area I teach is a student manager at State. He said Tucker has dirt on the University. He is looking for 50 million to walk away. So watch for that to happen. 

For all of you thinking you’re funny about “knowing a guy” when this plays out like I said make sure you come back and say you were wrong. 

 

Joined: 05/16/2012

MGoPoints: 8448

gbdub

September 28th, 2023 at 9:16 AM ^

If you’re reading this as confirmation that the BoT leaked, it isn’t (doesn’t mean they didn’t, but this article really proves nothing). 

Basically, Tracy believes that the BoT leaked and said so in a draft of her official statement where she said her story had been leaked. But that draft was never released - Tracy’s lawyer axed the specific accusation against the BoT in the final statement. She claims it was to avoid a distraction, but I’m pretty sure that’s lawyer speak for “we’re over our skis a bit and I don’t want to make an accusation we can’t prove yet”.

All this story does is confirm that originally Tracy planned to accuse the BoT directly. (so yes, this is a story about a leak (of Tracy’s name) that is itself based on a leak (of Tracy’s draft statement))

Have we actually seen a smoking gun that there really was a leak? To me it still seems very possible that somebody just connected the dots on a few rumors floating around the MSU athletic department and was gonna run with it, and Tracy got spooked. The majority of detailed information we have on the whole story still comes from Tracy herself via the USA Today article and data dump that she actively participated in and signed off when she became aware of the alleged leak. 

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26761

Blue In NC

September 28th, 2023 at 11:13 AM ^

Agree with your earlier point but I also think your version is somewhat generous to the Board.  My impression of the article is that the lawyer had reason to believe that the leak was due to someone associated with the BoT.  As a lawyer you would not draft a statement without at least reason to believe (something clearly more than a guess).  I could be wrong about that but the lawyer doesn't seem to back down from that being her assumption.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 8576

gbdub

September 30th, 2023 at 12:48 AM ^

I don’t know how you can read “deleted Tracy’s accusation against the board from her initial statement” as not backing down.

At the moment, we have zero actual evidence the board leaked, other than Tracy’s accusation, and some against it - the Board would not have been told themselves through official channels (according to the article, only the investigators, the Athletic Director, and the President “officially” knew) so someone would have had to leak it first to the Board for them to be the source of the public leak. 

Joined: 02/16/2010

MGoPoints: 26761

Dave

September 27th, 2023 at 7:01 PM ^

MSU's termination letter focuses on the "disrepute" that Tucker brought to the university, so if he can show that the university through its BoT created that "disrepute" by leaking it out into the world, he's gonna have a toehold in the coming legal battle. Curious what the employment lawyers think.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 338

mackbru

September 27th, 2023 at 7:48 PM ^

Nah. Tucker was ultimately going to be fired regardless, and the report undergirding the firing would have been made public (with redactions). The “leak” just expedited things a bit. MSU had cause to fire Tucker. So this development doesn’t substantially help his case.

People get way too caught up in leak drama. Leaking is usually legal. 

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 34136

Bluesince89

September 27th, 2023 at 8:04 PM ^

Maybe. The value of any settlement just went up, though. MSU would be stupid to let this get to discovery. It’s going to be a mess. Tucker hired real lawyers - the woman is a great commercial/contracts litigator in southeast Michigan and the man is one of the top management side employment attorneys in the state. 

Joined: 09/14/2008

MGoPoints: 14739

FB Dive

September 27th, 2023 at 11:47 PM ^

Eh. I'm not an employment lawyer, but MSU's cited reason for firing him is the pre-leak misconduct, which certainly seems sufficient to fire him regardless of whether it was consensual and regardless of whether the the misconduct was publicly known. His argument would essentially require him to claim that MSU wouldn't fire someone for misconduct if the misconduct remained secret which, jokes about MSU aside, is not a serious argument.

The true way this helps him is in settlement negotiations. MSU does not want their internal communications scrutinized by his lawyers and potentially publicized in court filings, so they have incentive to settle before a lengthy and potentially embarrassing discovery process. But if this case actually is litigated through completion, I think he has little to no shot of winning.

Joined: 08/03/2019

MGoPoints: 14486

BananaRepublic

September 28th, 2023 at 8:54 AM ^

Where Tucker has a point here is that it's clear the university actually fired him due to bad PR just based on the timeline. They don't have a bad PR clause to fire him for cause which is why they rely entirely on the idea of firing him for the conduct alleged with Tracy...which he will probably correctly argue that they knew about for months and took no corrective action. If they do go to discovery, it would not be shocking to find that the details of the investigation went wider than the presidents office and Office of Gen Counsel, but I think that's enough to make his case anyway. Mostly depends on how favorably the judge views MSU for firing him or how much they are penalized for sitting on their hands and then pretending to fire him for due to moral indignation.

I think he'll settle in the low 8 figures.

Joined: 09/04/2017

MGoPoints: 2315

M Ascending

September 28th, 2023 at 1:24 PM ^

The reason Tugger will get a big settlement is because MSU doesn't want a microscope up its ass.  Transparency is something they have consistently fought against,  and the last thing they want is to have to turn over thousands of pages of emails and documents and have their officers sit for depositions. 

Joined: 09/14/2016

MGoPoints: 21355

SalvatoreQuattro

September 27th, 2023 at 6:43 PM ^

”Someone associated with the BOT.”

So either a trustee or a big money donor.

Feds may get involved.

Interesting that Tracy didn’t want attention drawn to leaker. USA Today knows the identity of the leaker. They should spill the beans.

 

Joined: 11/30/2010

MGoPoints: 78902

Denard In Space

September 27th, 2023 at 7:40 PM ^

The article says that was the lawyer who made this decision, not Tracy herself. 

Karen Truszkowski, Tracy’s attorney, said the modification was a “legal strategy.” 

“I wanted people to know there was a leak, that it was not Brenda,” Truszkowski said. “I did not think it was necessary to point the finger at anyone in particular, so I chose not to do that because it still had the same effect.”

Joined: 05/24/2018

MGoPoints: 13469

Oregon Wolverine

September 28th, 2023 at 1:03 AM ^

Ideally, yes, but practically, no.  Some decisions are inherently the client’s final call — but those are rare.  Most strategy decisions belong to the lawyer, but the lawyer should, as long as practicable, consult w/the client.  
 

In practice, many lawyers believe they “know” what is “best” — take that w/a grain of salt because they often don’t — and act w/o full consultation w/frequency.  That’s what I’ve seen in 30+ years of practice, mostly criminal law, some high stakes civil law.  

Joined: 09/30/2014

MGoPoints: 2628