Gene Taylor to Kansas State!

[CyPanth]

And his first day on the job for K-State was spent in Iowa testifying in a discrimination lawsuit filed against U of I by a former assistant AD. Expecting the verdict any moment now.

[EightyfourBison]

And his first day on the job for K-State was spent in Iowa testifying in a discrimination lawsuit filed against U of I by a former assistant AD. Expecting the verdict any moment now.

And there's the verdict....

https://thinkprogress.org/jury-rules...r-c3e49ddd4206

[EndZoneQB]

And there's the verdict....

https://thinkprogress.org/jury-rules...r-c3e49ddd4206

Ouch. That certainly doesn't read well for Barta. Sounds like Gene was caught up in something he had nothing to do with...yikes.

[THEsocalledfan]

Ouch. That certainly doesn't read well for Barta. Sounds like Gene was caught up in something he had nothing to do with...yikes.

Have to be careful on media sources. I'd rather read an AP article on this to cut out possible bias in reporting.

[CyPanth]

Ouch. That certainly doesn't read well for Barta. Sounds like Gene was caught up in something he had nothing to do with...yikes.

One of the pieces of evidence of discrimination was that Gene Taylor got hired and paid $70k more than Jane Meyer who had been reassigned and was now bringing the lawsuit.

[Hammersmith]

One of the pieces of evidence of discrimination was that Gene Taylor got hired and paid $70k more than Jane Meyer who had been reassigned and was now bringing the lawsuit.

But how is that on Gene? Gene didn't hire himself or set the two salaries. If Barta was honest with Gene during the hiring process, then you might have a point. But does anyone really think Barta sat down with Gene and said, "I've got this woman working for me that I don't like because she's gay.* I'm going to hire you for a job she wants and pay you a buttload more in the hopes she'll get the message and quit." I don't see that. I'm going to bet that Gene went into the job fairly blind, and that Barta shaded the true situation.


*I'm not necessarily saying that was reason Barta didn't like her. But that's what the jury seemed to think.

[CyPanth]

But how is that on Gene? Gene didn't hire himself or set the two salaries. If Barta was honest with Gene during the hiring process, then you might have a point. But does anyone really think Barta sat down with Gene and said, "I've got this woman working for me that I don't like because she's gay.* I'm going to hire you for a job she wants and pay you a buttload more in the hopes she'll get the message and quit." I don't see that. I'm going to bet that Gene went into the job fairly blind, and that Barta shaded the true situation.


*I'm not necessarily saying that was reason Barta didn't like her. But that's what the jury seemed to think.

It certainly wasn't on Gene as if he did anything wrong, but he ended up in the middle of it by being competent and demanding a good salary. And he showed how smart he was by getting out at the right time.

[56BISON73]

But how is that on Gene? Gene didn't hire himself or set the two salaries. If Barta was honest with Gene during the hiring process, then you might have a point. But does anyone really think Barta sat down with Gene and said, "I've got this woman working for me that I don't like because she's gay.* I'm going to hire you for a job she wants and pay you a buttload more in the hopes she'll get the message and quit." I don't see that. I'm going to bet that Gene went into the job fairly blind, and that Barta shaded the true situation.


*I'm not necessarily saying that was reason Barta didn't like her. But that's what the jury seemed to think.

Its not on Gene. Its just situational evidence.

[Christopher Moen]

But how is that on Gene? Gene didn't hire himself or set the two salaries. If Barta was honest with Gene during the hiring process, then you might have a point. But does anyone really think Barta sat down with Gene and said, "I've got this woman working for me that I don't like because she's gay.* I'm going to hire you for a job she wants and pay you a buttload more in the hopes she'll get the message and quit." I don't see that. I'm going to bet that Gene went into the job fairly blind, and that Barta shaded the true situation.


*I'm not necessarily saying that was reason Barta didn't like her. But that's what the jury seemed to think.

As others have pointed out, Gene had nothing to do with this other than being the successor to the fired individual. The lady who was fired benefitted by being a gay woman in that she could double-down on her minority status in her Title IX claim and sympathy. Iowa was screwed unless they could show that she was without a doubt, incompetent at her job. They also would have proved that Barta and his staff never created a hostile environment for the fired individual.

I personally don't know the whole truth, nor both sides of this story, so I'm not going to say wether the judgement was right or wrong. I'm just pointing out the difficulty of how difficult it is to fire someone in today's world. It pretty much becomes a divorce case, and therefore good reasoning why employers need to do due diligence towards those they hire.

[MAKBison]

Have to be careful on media sources. I'd rather read an AP article on this to cut out possible bias in reporting.

That's funny right there.....ap cut out the bias.lol.