Argo QB, Chad Kelly sited in harassment/wrongful dismissal charges

[TecnoGenius]

This is called blaming the victim.

Sure, keep an open mind if you want but blaming the victim is why more don't come forward.

Of course I'll keep an open mind.  But looking at all possibilities seem like a fair thing to do.  Most are so quick to condemn Kelly as guilty or to just pay up, so how is saying sometimes these things turn out to be a lie or setup unfair?  Why is one ok yet the gets its own negative-sounding label?

Hey, I'm definitely in the Kelly's-a-creep and probably-did-it camp, but there is the (however remote) possibility it's all a $ grab.

Will you equally condemn the accuser if it turns out it's a big lie or hoax?  Many times when that is the outcome the story just quietly goes away, perhaps after leaving a life in shambles.

Right now it's she-said he-said.  That's literally all we have to go on.  That's the problem many of us are speaking to... it's not good to leave everyone hanging like this.  Imaginations can run wild.

Only two options remain, either the Argos have the situation completely under control, or they're about to massively flub it up just in time for the season to get rolling.  Hard to believe they wouldn't do everything to avoid the second scenario at this point.

Yes, the longer this draws out the more likely the outcome is that Kelly will win the case.  Because if there was damning evidence then all parties just pay the ask$ to make it all go away.  $50k pittance from Kelly and $250k outside the sms for the Argos?  Chump change.  Ambrosie being quiet also hints at this: Argos may have shown him evidence (witnesses, texts, emails) that it's phony.

Why fight it and keep it in the public eye if her case is rock solid?  There is nothing to gain.  At the end they'd have to pay her her ask, plus $50k legal fees.  Imagine the optics for them if that happens?  They're out the money and look like big meanies and abusers.  Who would risk that unless they were sure they'd win?

Kelly may be dumb, but the Argos lawyer team is not, I assure you.

[TBURGESS]

In a court of law, under oath, you are 100% correct.  The court of public opinion is different.  The longer this draws out with no comment or resolution, the worse it's going to get for the Argos and, perhaps, the league.  I have to believe, internally, the Argos have all the details they need to come to a decision.  The question is, what will be their strategy going forward.  And the pressure will continue to be on them the closer we get to the start of the 2024 season.

What could the Argo's possibly say in public that would help them in the court of public opinion? Attack her story and they're attacking a female victim. Say she's right but it doesn't amount to harassment or firing, which is likely the court case. Still attacking a female victim.

Harassment? Sounds like it, but it wasn't enough for her to quit. In fact she would have signed another contract if one was offered. 

Firing? The Argos didn't fire her & she didn't quit because of the harassment. The Argos chose the person who was worth way more to the team to keep and didn't offer a contract to the low end employee. That's business. 

[theaardvark]

What could the Argo's possibly say in public that would help them in the court of public opinion? Attack her story and they're attacking a female victim. Say she's right but it doesn't amount to harassment or firing, which is likely the court case. Still attacking a female victim.

Harassment? Sounds like it, but it wasn't enough for her to quit. In fact she would have signed another contract if one was offered.

Firing? The Argos didn't fire her & she didn't quit because of the harassment. The Argos chose the person who was worth way more to the team to keep and didn't offer a contract to the low end employee. That's business.

What can they say?

Have Kelly say "I'm sorry.  I did not know that my remarks were taken that way, and I apologize for any discomfort I may have caused.  I respect the work that "the coach" did for the team, and I will endeavour to do better going forward."

Then  the lawyer comes up and says "The locker room is a different place, and sometimes remarks are made that would not happen in a public setting.  Now that we are including more women in the environment makes this a more sensitive issue, and we are re-emphasizing the need for all parties to be more careful in their interactions going forward, and have re-committed to our in house training that the CFL has recommended."

The Pinball comes up and says "The Argos regret that this combination of events took place, and in the interest of being as fair as we can be, we have honoured "the coach's" requested compensation, and wish her well in her future in the industry".

Issue settled.

[Waffler]

Will you equally condemn the accuser if it turns out it's a big lie or hoax?  Many times when that is the outcome the story just quietly goes away, perhaps after leaving a life in shambles.

100% I would but as I said from the beginning the most likely outcome is to settle out of court because that comes with a gag order. That means we will never know everything about this and  Kelly keeps playing.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

What can they say?

Have Kelly say "I'm sorry.  I did not know that my remarks were taken that way, and I apologize for any discomfort I may have caused.  I respect the work that "the coach" did for the team, and I will endeavour to do better going forward."

Then  the lawyer comes up and says "The locker room is a different place, and sometimes remarks are made that would not happen in a public setting.  Now that we are including more women in the environment makes this a more sensitive issue, and we are re-emphasizing the need for all parties to be more careful in their interactions going forward, and have re-committed to our in house training that the CFL has recommended."

The Pinball comes up and says "The Argos regret that this combination of events took place, and in the interest of being as fair as we can be, we have honoured "the coach's" requested compensation, and wish her well in her future in the industry".

Issue settled.

Learned from government, coming forward with an apology acknowledges an incident occurred and accepts responsibility for wrongdoing, at this point it doesn't seem like that is the Argos intention.

[theaardvark]

Any settlement comes with the implication that something happened.  Getting out in front, and making it sound like you are sincerly sorry without admitting that there was any intent is probably the best you can do, short of getting the complaint withdrawn for a large payout and an NDA, which it does not seem like the plaintiff would be satisfied with.

[blue_gold_84]

Harassment? Sounds like it, but it wasn't enough for her to quit. In fact she would have signed another contract if one was offered.

Firing? The Argos didn't fire her & she didn't quit because of the harassment. The Argos chose the person who was worth way more to the team to keep and didn't offer a contract to the low end employee. That's business.

C'mon, that's not a fact.  That's speculation.

I agree with you otherwise. Optics and business are the drivers here for the Argos and MLSE. And it's easy for this to get swept aside in a big market like Toronto where, especially right now, the Jays and the Leafs are taking all the headlines. Nobody cares about the Argonauts right now.

[TBURGESS]

C'mon, that's not a fact.  That's speculation.

I agree with you otherwise. Optics and business are the drivers here for the Argos and MLSE. And it's easy for this to get swept aside in a big market like Toronto where, especially right now, the Jays and the Leafs are taking all the headlines. Nobody cares about the Argonauts right now.

She's complaining that they didn't offer her another contract. Why would she complain if she wouldn't sign it? 

[blue_gold_84]

She's complaining that they didn't offer her another contract. Why would she complain if she wouldn't sign it?

She said she was informed that her contract would not be renewed on Jan. 29.

Her providing details as to what took place is hardly complaining, much less justification for anyone to suggest it's a fact she would've signed a new contract.

[TBURGESS]

She said she was informed that her contract would not be renewed on Jan. 29.

Her providing details as to what took place is hardly complaining, much less justification for anyone to suggest it's a fact she would've signed a new contract.

She's suing for wrongful dismissal. If she wouldn't have signed the contract then how could it be wrongful dismissal? 

[theaardvark]

What could the Argo's possibly say in public that would help them in the court of public opinion? Attack her story and they're attacking a female victim. Say she's right but it doesn't amount to harassment or firing, which is likely the court case. Still attacking a female victim.

Harassment? Sounds like it, but it wasn't enough for her to quit. In fact she would have signed another contract if one was offered.

Firing? The Argos didn't fire her & she didn't quit because of the harassment. The Argos chose the person who was worth way more to the team to keep and didn't offer a contract to the low end employee. That's business.

She would have signed another contract if the Argos had created a safe workspace, for sure. 

IF that Argos let her go so they could keep Kelly, then that is an egregious violation of basic human resources priorities.  You don't get rid to the victim, you FIX the problem.  If that means cutting Kelly, so be it. But it should be as simple as telling him to adjust his interactions with the team staff.  Punishing the victim for bringing a concern to light is not what the CFL needs a franchise to do.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

She would have signed another contract if the Argos had created a safe workspace, for sure. 

IF that Argos let her go so they could keep Kelly, then that is an egregious violation of basic human resources priorities.  You don't get rid to the victim, you FIX the problem.  If that means cutting Kelly, so be it. But it should be as simple as telling him to adjust his interactions with the team staff.  Punishing the victim for bringing a concern to light is not what the CFL needs a franchise to do.

Her contract expired, it's not her choice to sign another one if the Argos don't offer her another contract.  What they did is perfectly legal and doesn't require any explanation, it happens every other day and twice on Sundays in the business world.  If she was a fulltime employee your reasoning would be sound, but football operates mostly on time limited contracts.  It's a commonly used cop out to avoid taking responsibility.

[theaardvark]

Her contract expired, it's not her choice to sign another one if the Argos don't offer her another contract.  What they did is perfectly legal and doesn't require any explanation, it happens every other day and twice on Sundays in the business world.  If she was a fulltime employee your reasoning would be sound, but football operates mostly on time limited contracts.  It's a commonly used cop out to avoid taking responsibility.

No doubt the non renewal of a contract is legal, and at the team's discretion to do so.

And she is within her rights to make a civil claim that she was not renewed due to the fact she had lodged sexual misconduct complaints which were not resolved.  And she can specify damages she has suffered by her treatment, and a judge will decide if she has a case.

The CFL needs something in the middle of these two outcomes.  Where the victim is taken care of and the team doesn't get a black eye.

Regardless the outcome of the case, the team will look bad.  If she wins, they will have been judged to have treated an employee wrongly to coddle a star player.  If she loses, depending on what comes out during the trial, and you can bet some nasty stuff will be said, the team will have "gotten away with" some very bad behaviour.

They should have settled immediately. Airing dirty laundry never helps anyone. Having NFL player Nathan Rourke speak out, as well as many others, is really bad publicity for the CFL and Argos, regardless the outcome.

[dd]

It's a sad situation where the corporate bully is going to make sure it gets dragged on for as long as they possibly can as they have deep pockets for lawyers and the little guy/gal doesn't. The Argos make me sick.

I thought Pinball had more class than this.

[blue_gold_84]

What they did is perfectly legal...

Sure. From an ethics or moral standpoint, however... Pretty different story. Hence her lawsuit, IMO.

It's a sad situation where the corporate bully is going to make sure it gets dragged on for as long as they possibly can as they have deep pockets for lawyers and the little guy/gal doesn't. The Argos make me sick.

I thought Pinball had more class than this.

This nasty situation is probably above him. I agree it's still a bad look, though.