ESPN fires Harold Reynolds

[Beer is Good]

Ducks,

ESPN can fire whoever they want.

As the business, they have that right.

There is a such thing as "Wrongful Termination". ESPN cannot just fire someone for no reason... but in this case they have a legitimate reason if the harrassment has been do ented.

[Obstructed_View]

There is a such thing as "Wrongful Termination". ESPN cannot just fire someone for no reason... but in this case they have a legitimate reason if the harrassment has been do ented.

Wrongful termination doesn't really apply to an at-will job. That is to say, if Reynolds didn't have a contract he could quit for any or no reason, and ESPN could fire him for any or no reason. If Reynolds believes that he was a victim of wrongful termination it would have to be determined by a court or arbitrator. Since ESPN wouldn't agree to arbitration, Reynolds would have to sue, meaning his entire employment history would become a matter of record. Not exactly a winning situation for him unless he legitimately has no complaints against him. If he did have a contract with ESPN it probably had a standard behavior clause in it and he has no recourse.

[Holmes_Fans]

Not sure if this has been said, but I read at numerous places he was fired because he wouldn't rag on Alex Rodriguez. We all know how ESPN jumps over everything and overreacts, they were at it again upplay the a-rod slump and Reynolds wouldn't do it.

[Obstructed_View]

Not sure if this has been said, but I read at numerous places he was fired because he wouldn't rag on Alex Rodriguez. We all know how ESPN jumps over everything and overreacts, they were at it again upplay the a-rod slump and Reynolds wouldn't do it.

We'll know by how quickly his camp jumps up to refute the harrassment stories that are bouncing around.

[ducks]

if espn has in his contract how he has to handle himself then they can fire him
if not they have will face a lawsuit and he will win

[Beer is Good]

Wrongful termination doesn't really apply to an at-will job. That is to say, if Reynolds didn't have a contract he could quit for any or no reason, and ESPN could fire him for any or no reason. If Reynolds believes that he was a victim of wrongful termination it would have to be determined by a court or arbitrator. Since ESPN wouldn't agree to arbitration, Reynolds would have to sue, meaning his entire employment history would become a matter of record. Not exactly a winning situation for him unless he legitimately has no complaints against him. If he did have a contract with ESPN it probably had a standard behavior clause in it and he has no recourse.

I agree with you. I wasn't speaking of the HR situation here... I was responding to the statement that ESPN can fire whoever they want because it's a business. That isn't true... they cannot discriminate because of race, sex, or any other such factors. In HR's case - if he does have this reported history then ESPN was within their right to fire him. But if he had never harrassed anyone and was a model citizen and they suddenly fired him - he could have taken action against them, especially if he had evidence that it was due to race, sex, etc.

[Obstructed_View]

But if he had never harrassed anyone and was a model citizen and they suddenly fired him - he could have taken action against them, especially if he had evidence that it was due to race, sex, etc.

Actually, he could take action against them ONLY if he had evidence that it was due to race, gender, etc.