Lawsuit Filed Against the Sox

[Tnetennba]

So we all should be super mad at the system that doesn’t hold rich & powerful people accountable?  Is that the  conclusion reached so far?  Cool, I’m on board.  Doesn’t change the fact that the allegations are yet to be proven and it’s premature to pass judgement on a situation of which none of us know the details first hand.  

If in fact the allegations are true, everyone involved in both the firing and the sweeping under the rug should be fired at minimum.  Top down.  If this is true, it’s completely fucked up.  Even if is is settled out of court, which is what I expect will happen.  But, as none of us truly know what happened, it is best not to jump to any conclusions until we have more corroboration. 

[Snopek]

21 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I’m going to run someone’s nose in it if this is settled out of court with a bunch of nondisclosure agreements? That’s rather amusing.

What you folks did was the easy thing. Declare if something obviously bad happened and we all know it then the person who did the discrimination is bad! Congrats! That’s rarely how these things work and we all know that. So why is it ok to declare what you all did but bad to challenge anyone on the more likely unclear scenarios?

I think you’re confusing easy with reasonable.

Also, your use of the word “declare” is exactly what’s wrong with this. No one has any grounds to be “declaring” anything about this right now, and I haven’t seen anyone in here actually doing that.

[ThatBallHitDeep_WAYBack]

This is a money grab.  Come on -- If you get fired because you aren't performing at your job, you can't pull "Cards" and try to take people down.

 

Grow up, Brian Ball.

[Snopek]

8 minutes ago, Snopek said:

No one has any grounds to be “declaring” anything about this right now, and I haven’t seen anyone in here actually doing that.

 

4 minutes ago, ThatBallHitDeep_WAYBack said:

This is a money grab.  Come on -- If you get fired because you aren't performing at your job, you can't pull "Cards" and try to take people down.

 

Grow up, Brian Ball.

Lol that didn’t last long.

[ptatc]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I can’t of course, and the people who said “if this happened then Hahn should be gone” can make those statements quite confident that they won’t know that either. And while it may feel awesome too say that I am supportive of good things and oppose bad ones, we live in a world where that clarity is rarely present. We eventually will probably have to deal with that in this case, so it seems fair to me to push on that point.

I think you can push the point without deciding what other people's views and values without knowing them.

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, ThatBallHitDeep_WAYBack said:

This is a money grab.  Come on -- If you get fired because you aren't performing at your job, you can't pull "Cards" and try to take people down.

 

Grow up, Brian Ball.

People get fired, and they wonder why. He was with the team for a long time. I would bet someone told him it was because he was gay. That doesn't mean it was. That person might have considered him a friend, didn't think it out, and didn't want to tell him there was a possibility they fired him because he wasn't good at his job or some other reason. And maybe during their conversation Ball led him to saying that. Maybe he told the guy he thought it was because he was gay, and the guy responded, yes. Or maybe the guy is a whistleblower. The fact is, there probably isn't a large employer that hasn't had similar lawsuits filed against them. Age, orientation, disability...if you were looking for a job and saw these lawsuits, and what was on the lawsuit filed, you considered gospel, would have a very hard time finding employment. .  

[Kyyle23]

6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

People get fired, and they wonder why. He was with the team for a long time. I would bet someone told him it was because he was gay. That doesn't mean it was. That person might have considered him a friend, didn't think it out, and didn't want to tell him there was a possibility they fired him because he wasn't good at his job or some other reason. And maybe during their conversation Ball led him to saying that. Maybe he told the guy he thought it was because he was gay, and the guy responded, yes. Or maybe the guy is a whistleblower. The fact is, there probably isn't a large employer that hasn't had similar lawsuits filed against them. Age, orientation, disability...if you were looking for a job and saw these lawsuits, and what was on the lawsuit filed, you considered gospel, would have a very hard time finding employment. .  

The age discrimination thing is weird.  I know they are casting a lot of nets in this suit but Ball is 50 now and was replaced by a guy only 8 years younger than him.  It's not like they hired some kid fresh out of college that had no experience, Thomas had been with the White Sox for a long time as well

 

edit: not even 8 years, Thomas is 46

[chitownsportsfan]

Has Ball tried to go work for another team? That would seem to be useful info. If he has and hasn't been hired maybe he's desperate. Who knows. The Sox could have discriminated and he could still have personal issues that make him bad at the job.

We will never know this will get settled before trial.

[Jack Parkman]

This kind of shit happens all of the time, and is nearly impossible to prove. 

Really, all the Sox have to do is say he was fired for performance reasons and it will probably get thrown out. 

People are getting fired for union organizing which is illegal and they're having a hard time proving it in a court of law. 

Courts are really a sham, as what they actually do is uphold existing power structures. There is no justice. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[Texsox]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Exactly. So if every detail happened and they settle out of court, no consequences? Everyone ok with that?

No. 

So if every detail *didn't* happen and they settle out of court, no consequences? Everyone ok with that?

Which is why I really hope this isn't settled out of court. 

Based on the team's injury history his termination didn't raise any questions that I can remember. But knowing how inept the front office can be, his allegations aren't outside of possibilities. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

I can’t of course, and the people who said “if this happened then Hahn should be gone” can make those statements quite confident that they won’t know that either. And while it may feel awesome too say that I am supportive of good things and oppose bad ones, we live in a world where that clarity is rarely present. We eventually will probably have to deal with that in this case, so it seems fair to me to push on that point.

Push what?

[GREEDY]

44 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

The age discrimination thing is weird.  I know they are casting a lot of nets in this suit but Ball is 50 now and was replaced by a guy only 8 years younger than him.  It's not like they hired some kid fresh out of college that had no experience, Thomas had been with the White Sox for a long time as well

 

edit: not even 8 years, Thomas is 46

And it was the next man up.  They literally just kept the guy who was covering for him while he was out. 

[mmmmmbeeer]

Right or wrong, I'm always suspicious of these sorts of lawsuits filed by pissed off former employees.  Especially in a case like this where we, as fans, know damn well that his dismissal was perfectly justified on performance alone.  Been in the corporate world a long time and there are some REALLY scornful people out there who go after former employers with a vengeance hoping to get a settlement before they actually have to prove anything.

[turnin' two]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Since you won’t say it explicitly here’s the text, you can copy and paste. “I would have no problem with the White Sox firing a guy for being gay as long as they settle the lawsuit out of court.”

I think you need a new jump to conclusions mat.  Yours must be worn out by now. 

 

That isn't what he is saying at all.  Not to put words into Ptac's mouth, but my understanding of what he is saying, with which I agree by the way, is that even if they settle out of court, it doesn't mean any of the allegations are true.  It certainly could, but it could also just mean that going to court is expensive and a major hassle.  And it is simply easier and cheaper to settle the case out of court.  A settlement is not an admission of guilt.  

[Texsox]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Since you won’t say it explicitly here’s the text, you can copy and paste. “I would have no problem with the White Sox firing a guy for being gay as long as they settle the lawsuit out of court.”

So the team is guilty unless this goes to court? Is that really fair? 

If this is settled out of court it would mean that all parties, including the plaintiff, are satisfied. If the plaintiff is satisfied, I'm satisfied too. We won't know which it is but I'm not going to blame victims for settling or blame organizations for settling nuisance suits. You are certainly welcome to say you are not satisfied with the conclusion and take whatever action you find appropriate. 

 

 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

The two discrimination classifications this guy falls in - age and sexual orientation - also happen to be the two reasons he was fired. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if he was told he was fired for being gay, I'm not sure why they're also going after them for age discrimination and vice versa. 

I've always found the argument of age discrimination odd because it's more likely that young people are discriminated against under the guise of "experience" and older people tend to be industry gatekeepers now-a-days. Look at the most powerful positions in the world and in corporations, they almost all trend older.

Maybe the White Sox were on the forefront of race changes in baseball but do have an issue with gay people; it feels really unlikely based on their history, but none of us know what goes on behind closed doors. As for the time lapse, that's not all that odd but what is odd is that they would promote the person who they were going to discriminate against. 

In the world of sports, the one thing I view as a possibility is that some players were uncomfortable with him being gay and found out somehow without knowing previously, and the team termed him because of that. That's really difficult to prove without a paper trail of some sorts, but that would be the one possibility I could see as having changed from 2018 to 2020. 

[gusguyman]

I'm definitely not someone who thinks we have to base our personal opinion on the court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts, we as people just have to look at the facts available and make the best judgment we can.

That said, in this case, with the facts presented so far, I'm really not seeing enough to decide either way. Quite frankly, the car jacking thing is just really throwing me off. Is his allegation that Rick Hahn made up the drug/gambling/etc addiction thing as cover to fire him for being gay? And if that is the case, why is the lawsuit also for age AND disability discrimination too? Having all three makes it seem like he is fishing, but perhaps it is standard legal practice to just lump it all together? 

He does have the one executive who allegedly said he was fired for his sexuality, which is enough that I won't dismiss the allegations as fake. But unless more information comes out I think my personal judgment has to be not guilty. Not innocent, but something doesn't pass the smell test here. Hopefully more information comes out now that the case is public, because it really seems like there is a puzzle piece missing here. 

[chitownsportsfan]

10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

The two discrimination classifications this guy falls in - age and sexual orientation - also happen to be the two reasons he was fired. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if he was told he was fired for being gay, I'm not sure why they're also going after them for age discrimination and vice versa. 

I've always found the argument of age discrimination odd because it's more likely that young people are discriminated against under the guise of "experience" and older people tend to be industry gatekeepers now-a-days. Look at the most powerful positions in the world and in corporations, they almost all trend older.

Maybe the White Sox were on the forefront of race changes in baseball but do have an issue with gay people; it feels really unlikely based on their history, but none of us know what goes on behind closed doors. As for the time lapse, that's not all that odd but what is odd is that they would promote the person who they were going to discriminate against. 

In the world of sports, the one thing I view as a possibility is that some players were uncomfortable with him being gay and found out somehow without knowing previously, and the team termed him because of that. That's really difficult to prove without a paper trail of some sorts, but that would be the one possibility I could see as having changed from 2018 to 2020. 

This is completely plausible. If there's a paper trail it will be found in emails and texts where they discussed it. If they did fire him because the players were uncomfortable, that's unfortunate but I'm not sure how I'd expect the Sox to operate otherwise. If you keep the guy you risk a player revolt and I think 90% of MLB players would prefer to *not* have a gay trainer. It's just the reality of of the clubhouse.

[Texsox]

5 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

 If you keep the guy you risk a player revolt and I think 90% of MLB players would prefer to *not* have a gay trainer. It's just the reality of of the clubhouse.

I think 90% of the players would prefer to not get injured and maximize their athletic potential.  They also realize their careers are best served by having the best trainer possible. 

[chitownsportsfan]

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I think 90% of the players would prefer to not get injured and maximize their athletic potential.  They also realize their careers are best served by having the best trainer possible. 

I don't know. There's a ton of homophobia at all levels of organized sports. I saw it in low level college. Like it was 15 years ago now but the F word was fairly well used and I went to a very progressive school. Anybody on the other team we didn't like was usually a F**. It's just the culture. Not saying it's right I'm just saying it's there.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I think 90% of the players would prefer to not get injured and maximize their athletic potential.  They also realize their careers are best served by having the best trainer possible. 

Just not how the clubhouse operates, sadly. In MLB especially, it's a rather conservative group who share a wide ranging of views and beliefs, some of which are clearly homophobic and even racist. I think a homophobic demographic might be more openly homophobic in sports because of the way players act in a clubhouse setting. 

It's not right, but sadly look at the Blackhawks case. The PLAYERS were making fun of the guy for being assaulted by a male coach. I'm obviously not saying it's right, but it feels like the most possible avenue. I also agree it puts the management in a tough spot, because if players were to be uncomfortable and outwardly disrespectful and open about their disdain for it, you risk sexual harassment and other lawsuits. Again, it's not right but anyone who has been in a high level clubhouse understands there's a lot of inappropriate shit that goes on, and it's not your standard workplace. 

I have a hard time believing Hahn and company hate gay people and wanted him gone after two+ years of knowing for that reason, but I do find it slightly plausible that if he WAS dismissed because of being gay (which is still a big if based on the facts we know currently) it was because of player sentiment and or attitude.

[Polar Bear]

10 hours ago, Dominikk85 said:

To me it sounds like he was indeed fired for performance reasons and now tries to play the "gay card". I'm not saying there is no Homophobia in sports but why would the sox fire him two years after learning he is gay? 

 if the drug/gambling accusation was made and is not true that would be very bad of course but that someone is fired for performance and then tries to get some money by claiming it was sexual orientation, age, gender, disability or race is not unusual, those lawyers who are working in that field are looking out for stuff like that. 

For the sox that is very bad of course, even if they win the lawsuit some people will still make "sox are homophobic" out of that. 

 

Definitely seems like a money grab kinda thing with what is out there 

4 hours ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

Sounds like a money grab.

Also him being a covid conspirator probably played a far greater role being fired as a trainer in 2020 then anything.

Would agree

4 hours ago, ptatc said:

If there are no further facts or information how can you judge anyone?

Unless the unnamed source comes forward with hard evidence or some other hard evidence comes out the case will most likely get tossed 

Edited May 11, 2022 by Polar Bear

[Harold's Leg Lift]

Age discrimination in MLB is very very real.  

[turnin' two]

2 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Age discrimination in MLB is very very real.  

I can't stop rooting for Pujols and Rich Hill!

AKA the only MLB-ers older than I am.  THE DREAM IS STILL ALIVE!!!!!!!

[Y2Jimmy0]

2 hours ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Age discrimination in MLB is very very real.  

Yep. You have to be 76 years or older to manage the White Sox