Jeremy Roenick Sues NBC Sports for Anti-Straight Discrimination in Firing

[SABRES 0311]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

When will a white hetrosexual male get a break in this country?

 

49 minutes ago, SwampD said:

2016.

It was a one night only special. ?
 

Roenick better be careful. One more screw up and someone wearing skinny jeans will crawl out of their mom’s basement. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by SABRES 0311

[PerreaultForever]

[Pimlach]

On 7/18/2020 at 12:46 AM, LGR4GM said:

Major networks being CBS, nbc, abc?

Yes,  the old school major networks.  Now we also have CNN, Fox, and whole bunch or others.  There is so much news that they have all become sensational, seeking an audience that wants to hear what they are selling rather than straight unbiased journalism.  

Edited July 19, 2020 by Pimlach

[Pimlach]

Reading this thread again and it is interesting to me how these things turn into debates on accountability and fairness. These are the times.  

Social media and 24 hour news/sports/opinions has given a voice to the loudest and often the most radical or provocative.  Good honest debate is missing when opposing opinions are shamed into silence.  

I was watching reruns of The Office during the quarantine and came to the conclusion that it could never make it today.  

[JohnC]

14 hours ago, Eleven said:

Let's assume, for a minute, that your last sentence is right.  Problem is, he doesn't bring much value to the company so he's not worth preserving.

Now, let's get into reality.  Does NBC want to be sued by Tappen, who has a case, or Roenick, who probably does not?  This is an easy decision for NBC.  

Why would Tappen sue NBC over raunchy comments made by Roenick? They were colleagues and friends. She vacationed with Roenick and his wife in Portugal. If she was upset with his comments she would have discussed the matter with him and made her feelings known and resolved the issue between them. Roenick on a radio show known for its free wheeling made a gross comment about not only her but another male media colleague. It was a bad attempt at humor. 

I haven't heard Tappen say that she felt victimized and humiliated by Roenick's comments. (That's not to say she wasn't upset with him. I don't know? If you can point out any comments she made about the episode I would consider it.) As I stated in a prior post Roenick is a loud and brash personality. That's why he was on the set; that's why he was hired. 

There's an overriding issue here that I find troubling. It goes beyond this incident but is reflected in this incident. There is a too quick "boycott" response if a person has a particular political or values leaning. The pouncing on mistakes and bad judgments that are inevitable in the communication business is becoming too common place. Both sides of the political spectrum are actively involved in this receptivity to be outraged. That's the bigger issue that bothers me  

[stinky finger]

12 hours ago, Eleven said:

And this explains the generational difference, doesn't it?  We went from "who shot JR" to "who hired JR."

Not sure what you're saying here.

Many seem to think that JR was not worthy of his gig to begin with. That's on NBC. Is that not a reflection? They're both dunces. 

 

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

A pig and a hog.

The hog is on the right.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Why would Tappen sue NBC over raunchy comments made by Roenick?

Hostile work environment.  Not saying she would, but she has a case.  He probably doesn't.

[JohnC]

15 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Hostile work environment.  Not saying she would, but she has a case.  He probably doesn't.

A colleague and friend who makes a raunchy comment about her and another colleague in a bad attempt of humor on a jock radio show does not constitute or come close to constituting a hostile work environment. You are extrapolating a boorish incident outside of the workplace beyond its significance. 

As far as his legal position I never said that he had a credible legal position.  

[Weave]

50 minutes ago, JohnC said:

A colleague and friend who makes a raunchy comment about her and another colleague in a bad attempt of humor on a jock radio show does not constitute or come close to constituting a hostile work environment. You are extrapolating a boorish incident outside of the workplace beyond its significance. 

As far as his legal position I never said that he had a credible legal position.  

Its not about whether she will sue or not.  It is about the likelihood of a valid lawsuit over the incident if she were to decide she wanted to do it.  The network now has liability regardless of whether anyone thinks she is the kind to sue or not.  No network is going to accept that kind of liability.

[SABRES 0311]

27 minutes ago, Weave said:

Its not about whether she will sue or not.  It is about the likelihood of a valid lawsuit over the incident if she were to decide she wanted to do it.  The network now has liability regardless of whether anyone thinks she is the kind to sue or not.  No network is going to accept that kind of liability.

I actually agree with you here. My joking in previous posts aside, Roenick is a man child. It makes him entertaining on air but doesn’t translate well to daily life. I don’t think he’s the scourge of the Earth but he needs to think about some stuff.

[Kruppstahl]

LOL.  I love JR.  What a freaking player, too! 

He has a screw loose.

Several times, Rob Ray has mentioned on air that he very deliberately went around the league trying to make amends with any players he may have humiliated or hurt during his playing days.

He has said that everyone he has approached has been on board with making peace--except one! 

Yep, JR.  He just won't do it.

I guess many years ago Rayzor said something very personal and "out of bounds" to JR during a game, and JR has never forgiven him for it.

Of course back then, talking outrageous smack was absolutely a part of the game.

That's all long gone now, sadly.

 

 

 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Its not about whether she will sue or not.  It is about the likelihood of a valid lawsuit over the incident if she were to decide she wanted to do it.  The network now has liability regardless of whether anyone thinks she is the kind to sue or not.  No network is going to accept that kind of liability.

Sue for what? A colleague and a friend made boorish comments about her and another male colleague. She was not harassed on the job. It's not even known if she was offended or simply took it as her friend Jeremy behaving as he is known to behave in a rambunctious manner. You bring up the issue of the network being liable? Liable for what? For juvenile behavior of an employee on a single appearance on a jock radio show? 

The notion of the possibility of a valid (your word) lawsuit is an absurdity. On what basis would they as a company be liable for an employee making foolish comments on a jock radio show? This is one crude incident in which he acted like a high school juvenile. As I said it before it's my opinion the response for firing Roenick is out of proportion to the poor judgment. 

Don't you find it surprising that the two people who have not criticized Roenick for his comments are the two colleagues, male and female,  he was joking about. There are plenty of things for the trigger happy boycott crowd to be upset with. However, this single act of immaturity shouldn't be an incident worthy of pumping up the manufactured outrage industry. 

note: I didn't intend to highlight my response. Something went wrong in the posting that inadvertently highlighted the post. I apologize for that. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by JohnC

[Weave]

58 minutes ago, JohnC said:

On what basis would they as a company be liable for an employee making foolish comments on a jock radio show?

Their employer is duty bound to ensure a work environment free from sexual harassment whether either of them complain about this incident or not.  Company management has to act in the interests of company ownership and reduce their liability.  They know these comments were out there.  They know it was about a co-worker.  It most definitely requires the company to do what is necessary to prevent an environment of sexual harassment.  Could they have suspended Roenick?  Sure but, see below.

Frankly, being a media company, they need to protect their reputation to protect their brand.  No media company will want to associate what Roenick said with their brand. This really is a zero tolerance situation.

Edit to add- Victims often don't complain.  For many reasons.  Her silence is most definitely not evidence of acceptance.  Given company awareness of the comments, lack of a complaint doesn't absolve the company from legal liability in the event that there is legal action somewhere down the road.  This was a very public statement.  The company knows it was said, and everyone else knows as well.  Maybe she feels pressured to keep her mouth shut this time.  Maybe 3 or 4 times down the road she decides to no longer keep her mouth shut and files suit.  No company can afford that potential liability. Are you willing to bet that a jury of peers won't find that the company should have been reasonably aware of the possibility of a harassing environment after this? 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Weave

[thewookie1]

I will only say that if Weir and the other 3 people in the 2018 Olympics said things of similar nature; they should be fired as well. 

[JohnC]

58 minutes ago, Weave said:

Their employer is duty bound to ensure a work environment free from sexual harassment whether either of them complain about this incident or not.  Company management has to act in the interests of company ownership and reduce their liability.  They know these comments were out there.  They know it was about a co-worker.  It most definitely requires the company to do what is necessary to prevent an environment of sexual harassment.  Could they have suspended Roenick?  Sure but, see below.

Frankly, being a media company, they need to protect their reputation to protect their brand.  No media company will want to associate what Roenick said with their brand. This really is a zero tolerance situation.

Edit to add- Victims often don't complain.  For many reasons.  Her silence is most definitely not evidence of acceptance.  Given company awareness of the comments, lack of a complaint doesn't absolve the company from legal liability in the event that there is legal action somewhere down the road.  This was a very public statement.  The company knows it was said, and everyone else knows as well.  Maybe she feels pressured to keep her mouth shut this time.  Maybe 3 or 4 times down the road she decides to no longer keep her mouth shut and files suit.  No company can afford that potential liability. Are you willing to bet that a jury of peers won't find that the company should have been reasonably aware of the possibility of a harassing environment after this? 

We are going in circles. There is not much more that I can add to what I have already stated. For me the issue isn't that Roenick behaved properly or not as it is the proportionality of the response. I respectfully disagree with your position. 

[klos1963]

On 7/17/2020 at 10:10 PM, Huckleberry said:

If those Weir comments are true, then yeah double standards and he'll probably win. ?

it shouldn't be relevant what Weir said. This should be about Roenick.  I remember the preaching of personal accountability... when it's on the other side.

[IKnowPhysics]

If JR sexually harsses anyone else, and that emplyee sues, the case is stronger based on this incident.  It's not just a threat of litigation from Tappen, it's the liability NBC carries by remaining involved with JR with incident on record.

The excuse that it's "locker room" talk is toxic and gross and can ***** right off.  Don't make sexual comments about your coworkers and don't excuse those who do.  That *****'s for ***** and losers.

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

We are going in circles. There is not much more that I can add to what I have already stated. For me the issue isn't that Roenick behaved properly or not as it is the proportionality of the response. I respectfully disagree with your position. 

The reason you are going in circles (the rest of us are not) is that you are arguing with several lawyers with considerable experience and at least one person, if not more, with considerable HR experience.

[JohnC]

55 minutes ago, Eleven said:

The reason you are going in circles (the rest of us are not) is that you are arguing with several lawyers with considerable experience and at least one person, if not more, with considerable HR experience.

Being a lawyer or a person experienced in HR doesn't mean that there is only one valid opinion on this topic of discussion. For every lawyer that says it is up---there are other lawyers who say it is down. Unanimity is not guaranteed or automatic within this profession or outside of it. When you are talking about the law and its application judgment is intrinsically part of the equation. That's why there are two tables seating two different views in the courtroom. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by JohnC

[Zamboni]

I see the majority of this three page thread as a “this is my opinion and you aren’t changing my mind”, and “you have your opinion and I’m not changing your mind” frivolous exercise. ? 

[Taro T]

Goes back to what I keep telling my kids: we live in a free country & you can do what you want.  But just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

That, and actions (in this case words) have consequences.  Sometimes those seem out of proportion to the initial action.  Is what it is; life isn't always fair.  Of course with that said, believe strongly in the concept of a mulligan provided you haven't irreparably caused permanent harm to someone.  (People screw up; it's one of the few things we seem as a species to be consistently good at. ? And theoretically we learn from our mistakes.)  Wouldn't be shocked if 2-3 years down the road somebody hired him again in a similar role or doing color commentary.

[North Buffalo]

It's Roenick... don't care...

[That Aud Smell]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:21 AM, JohnC said:

The quick draw resorting to "cancelling" out is becoming too prevalent to the extent that it is stifling communication. 

15 hours ago, JohnC said:

For me the issue isn't that Roenick behaved properly or not as it is the proportionality of the response. 

It's a weird test case (given how I feel about Roenick (he's a somewhat entertaining blowhard, and a total Delta Bravo)), but I agree with this sentiment. Cancel culture stinks. And it would stink if Roenick was fired for this lone lapse in judgment. I think that's a pretty big "if".

 

[JohnC]

22 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

It's a weird test case (given how I feel about Roenick (he's a somewhat entertaining blowhard, and a total Delta Bravo)), but I agree with this sentiment. Cancel culture stinks. And it would stink if Roenick was fired for this lone lapse in judgment. I think that's a pretty big "if".

 

Unless there is more information behind the scenes it seems that he was fired for his singular juvenile comments on a radio show about two colleagues who he is friends with. I have not heard any comments that Roenick has a history of improper behavior relating to sexual harassment. It's not unusual that more is going on about an incident and individual that the public is privy to. So I won't dismiss that possibility. However,  I just haven't heard anyone (anonymous or not) coming forward complaining how he conducts himself. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I think we may see more people come forward now.  Once a complaint has been lodged often more come to light.