News Article: GMBG Caught Up in Lawsuit from Pittsburgh Days

[2Pair]

Obviously not what I meant.

Referring to Guerin’s part.

You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?

Depends on the facts.

 

[Webster]

Okay Guerin screwed up if this is true, but he didn't commit a crime. I don't think he'll get fired for this, but it's probably on his mistake account.

 

[AKL]

I don't see why Guerin would get fired for this. He fired the guy who allegedly assaulted the woman, and the coach is pissed off that he got fired a year after Guerin left the organization.

 

[ThatGuy22]

You don't see a problem with Guerin being complicit in the coverup?

Its not a cover-up.

The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.

Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.

There only real messup is probably the Pens having a meat head former player like BG explain the the organizations obligation, instead of a a lawyer or HR rep.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

I don’t think he’ll be fired and here’s why: with all the coach/management firings that come at the cause of unacceptable conduct, there’s one common-denominator, and that’s that the person who gets fired very obviously has a flawed view that the organization doesn’t agree with. For example, with Peters in Calgary, it’s very obvious from the things he said that he was/is racist and that doesn’t align with the Calgary Flames and the NHL. In Guerin’s case, he didn’t do anything that would indicate he supports sexual assault. He asked to keep quiet purely to not have people look poorly on the organization. It appears as soon as he was aware of the situation, he fired (made resign) Donatelli, and for all we know, he could’ve been doing all that was asked of him by Skalde as it doesn’t appear any charges were pressed at the time, and it wasn’t until Skalde’s dismissal that the information came out. More information will assuredly come out on the situation, but I think people want to look at this the worst way. Right now, I don’t believe he’s at risk to lose his job. And, honestly, I hope he’s not. I like that he’s willing to take this team back a step and build through speed and skill. I like that he’s shown a willingness to trade for futures, and I like that he’s willing to swing big trades.

 

[2Pair]

Its not a cover-up.

The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.

Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.

There only real messup is probably the Pens having a meat head former player like BG explain the the organizations obligation, instead of a a lawyer or HR rep.

It's absolutely a cover up.
This isn't a legal issue. It's a moral issue. I understand why Pittsburgh and Guerin would choose to do what they did, but when you make the wrong choice and it gets out, people lose their jobs.

 

[AKL]

This isn't a legal issue. It's a moral issue. I understand why Pittsburgh and Guerin would choose to do what they did, but when you make the wrong choice and it gets out, people lose their jobs.

Yeah it's not a moral issue either. They did the right thing, they just didn't tell anyone about it.

 

[2Pair]

Yeah it's not a moral issue either. They did the right thing, they just didn't tell anyone about it.

covering for a sex offender is most definitely a moral issue.

 

[AKL]

covering for a sex offender is most definitely a moral issue.

They're not covering for a sex offender.

See:

Its not a cover-up.

The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.

Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.

There only real messup is probably the Pens having a meat head former player like BG explain the the organizations obligation, instead of a a lawyer or HR rep.

Kinda just seems like you're looking for a reason to fire Guerin because you don't like him.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Kinda just seems like you're looking for a reason to fire Guerin because you don't like him.

That ol' Spurgeon contract.

 

[2Pair]

They're not covering for a sex offender.

See:


Kinda just seems like you're looking for a reason to fire Guerin because you don't like him.

Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?

 

[AKL]

Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?

For at least the third time:

The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.

Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?

Do you want the organization to hold a press conference and publicly label him as sex offender, likely without much proof? I'm sure that wouldn't open up a whole world of legal liability.

 

[2Pair]

For at least the third time:

You don't actually think that means anything?

Do you want the organization to hold a press conference and publicly label him as sex offender, likely without much proof? I'm sure that wouldn't open up a whole world of legal liability.

Do you think maybe there's a middle ground where you work with the victims to do the right thing?

 

[ThatGuy22]

Why would Pittsburgh/Guerin tell them to keep it quiet?

We have no idea how the conversation went. We have a third hand account from a lawyer seeking monetary damages.

Companies absolutely have to protect an employees personal information as confidential, which includes cause of termination. You know how you put previous employment on employment applications, when those get called if you provide any negative feedback, you can be sued and will lose. All you can do is confirm they worked there, the dates and basic job description. That's due to an employees right to privacy.

That said. I would not be shocked if former NHLer BG, talking to former NHLer Skaldes was far to informal and not as precise in his language as he should have been. "We gotta keep this in the lockeroom" as opposed to "we have a legal obligation to keep this information confidential".

 

[AKL]

Do you think maybe there's a middle ground where you work with the victims to do the right thing?

They did the right thing. They fired the guy that allegedly assaulted his wife. That's the end of the Penguins involvement in the issue. The rest is on the guy, his wife, and the Pittsburgh police department.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Do you think maybe there's a middle ground where you work with the victims to do the right thing?

Probably, but the victims also had multiple months to notify the authorities, which would've made it public, and didn't. When the organization found out, they investigated (right thing to do) and the guy was out of a job days later (the right outcome). Now, you could probably say a better outcome would be for him to face the courts, but that isn't the organization's responsibility.

 

[2Pair]

They did the right thing. They fired the guy that allegedly assaulted his wife. That's the end of the Penguins involvement in the issue. The rest is on the guy, his wife, and the Pittsburgh police department.

How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?

Probably somewhere in the "legally responsible" section.

 

[2Pair]

Probably, but the victims also had multiple months to notify the authorities, which would've made it public, and didn't. When the organization found out, they investigated (right thing to do) and the guy was out of a job days later (the right outcome). Now, you could probably say a better outcome would be for him to face the courts, but that isn't the organization's responsibility.

I agree with a lot of this, but let's just simplify the discussion.

Do you think telling a victim of sexual assault to keep quiet is the right thing to do?

I can see the argument that guys shouldn't lose their jobs for something like that, but I can't begin to understand how some are thinking that Pitt/Guerin "did nothing wrong"

 

[AKL]

How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?

Alright, for the fourth and last time:

The courts have consistently upheld an employees right to privacy. That includes details around performance reviews and disciplinary actions. Those rights extend even to shitheads.

Unless there is evidence BG was pressuring them not to go to the cops, which that hasn't been provided, this is a non issue.

I even bolded the parts that pertain to your question this time.

 

[MuckOG]

How does telling a current employee what he can/can't do about the situation fit into your timeline above?

There is nothing improper about an employer telling an employee that that can't publicly disclose a company PERSONNEL issue. That happens every day, everywhere. And nowhere in the plaintiff allegation is it said that BG told Skardle that he couldn't pursue criminal charges against Donatelli. Only that he's not permitted to discuss PERSONNEL matters publicly.

My question is why didn't Skardle or his wife file criminal charges against Donatelli? At that point, this all becomes public. But for some reason they decided not to do so. Instead, they waited for SEVEN MONTHS bring this to BG's attention....and within a week Donatelli was out of a job.

What more do you want an organization to do? Prosecute the case that even Skardle or his wife don't want prosecuted?

 

[2Pair]

Probably somewhere in the "legally responsible" section.

You can't possibly believe that the Penguins are "legally responsible" to prevent the wife of one of their employees from reporting a crime?

 

[MuckOG]

You can't possibly believe that the Penguins are "legally responsible" to prevent the wife of one of their employees from reporting a crime?

Is that what happened? Is that what the plaintiff allegation states? I don't think so.

The Skaldles have every right to file a criminal complaint. They didn't do it for SEVEN MONTHS before reporting it to BG and they haven't done so since then. NO employer can tell an employee that they can't file criminal charges against anyone.....and its worth noting that not even the plaintiff attorneys allege that. That should tell you something.

I should also state that I believe the victim was assaulted by this creep. But that doesn't mean that BG did anything improper either.