forums

Mel Tucker is a Corch [Suspended after investigation...now fired]

cway313 said:
All I know is that 33% of this is bull****, 35% of this is just you guessing, 14% of this is just you covering up some insecurity from the 5 women that rejected you before you started ******* men. 12% of this is you thinking you're a comedian, 5% of this is you smiling because you think you are so clever and 1% of me is mad I wasted my time replying to a ****** clown.
100% of people that want others to think they know it all are pieces of **** and you overqualify.
Click to expand...
you’re revealing a lot about yourself as well through this thread but you be you
 
Advertisement
DoctorKrazey said:
Putting the intricacies of the case on the back burner for just a sec it does make you wonder; How friggin dumb do you have to be to sexually harass the woman who is literally there for….wait for it….sexual harassment prevention? You can’t make this stuff up.
Click to expand...
Stupidest sh*t one can possibly fathom...
Why in the name of God would you put yourself in this type of predicament??...
 
They need to go full development program. I don’t care what you say and how much money they have they’re not gonna recruit at a top level. They’d be lucky to lance leopold, Elko, smith from Oregon state. Etc
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
fail drop gun GIF
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes.

I would also add that there are certain posters who have (not so succesfully) TRIED to apply legal terms and presumed standards to this situation that do not really apply.

It's not whether she is a W-2 employee. In today's world, there are PLENTY of people who work on a college campus who are NOT employed by the University directly, or are 1099 type "subcontractors". A university cannot avoid its obligations simply because "hey, you're not an official employee".

And it's not whether Mel Tucker is "married" or "separated". It might be CALLED a "morals clause", but we are not talking about 19th century morals.

And it's not whether she "should have done" something different. I realize some people have read some accounts and think they know all the details of how this woman should have handled things differently, but this isn't that different from the old days of "but the woman should have dressed more conservatively".

Everyone is entitled to make friendships with people they work with, or even more casual acquaintances. I go to events all the time with professionals from KPMG and BDO. They work in my building with some frequency. The fact that KPMG/BDO personnel are not "employees" of my company doesn't mean anything if they are subjected to harassment in my office. And I can form friendships with KPMG/BDO personnel, but that doesn't give me the right to try to convert that professional friendship into a romantic relationship.

I absolutely wish this woman had been clear and decisive up-front and told him "no" in a way that left no uncertainty. Often, with people who have been through prior sexual abuse (which had happened to her) and with other considerations (such as "ongoing work"), it can become much more difficult to tell someone no in a way that might impact the future in a negative way.

The fact remains, this is a "Mel Tucker" problem more than anything. I realize that not every poster will see it that way. I realize that some are going to make this "50-50" just to try to "be fair". Or worse, put the majority of the blame on the woman.

But the issue with the FIRING is completely on Mel Tucker. It is. He shouldn't have done what he did. Doesn't matter if he is married or separated. It's a problem because it is in the workplace, not because of one's marital status at any given moment.
Click to expand...
Bunker Mentality said:
No.

She remained an approved vendor despite the completion of her initial services and was scheduled to return in the future; her complaint really centers around retaliation after, allegedly, she rebuffed Mel's sexual advances. Certain behavior outside the workplace can come into play if the party feels said outside behavior created a hostile work environment or otherwise relates to an adverse employment decision/evaluation. It all comes back to him cancelling services that were previously scheduled after he spanked his meat on the phone.

Mel will not see another dime of that money based on the contract language he agreed to; which states, he will be in breech for "any conduct which constitutes moral turpitude or which, in the university's reasonable judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule upon the university."

If there was any grey area, he wouldn't have been terminated. This information was known to MSU for months and they didn't react to it impulsively. To their credit they followed due process with Mel, but once the threshold for the morality language was met & HR (lawyers) gave the green light, they reacted decisively with his termination.

When someone guarantees you $95M, making you the highest paid University and State employee, they have every right to demand a certain standard of personal & professional conduct. It appears Mel felt the same based on the morality language he agreed to, but unfortunately for him he failed to meet those standards.
Click to expand...

Yes @ both of the above. As I have to remind people daily, there are a lot of "feels" (pun kind of intended) in many posters' responses, but "feels" and the law have nothing to do with one another.

The clause which leaves him a rudderless ship is, "in the university's reasonable judgment," and the time to fight that language was before he signed it. His choices have resulted in observable, "public disrespect" and "ridicule," the university and good luck demonstrating the university is unreasonable to judge them that way. Even if you have a sliver of hope you can, you still punted to THEIR judgement, as a university, of your conduct as their highest paid employee.

I am sure if we went diving through the universities 1,000 page code of conduct, to which he also agreed to adhere, there's plenty more for which his little rub-out session ran afoul, but it isn't necessary. I am certain they are saving that for litigation.
 
Advertisement
Don't know the details here but guys no wacking off on facetime calls. I don't care if she is showing you her hooters and talking dirty. Keep it in your pants. Pretty soon you will need a signed contract before every sexual encounter. Stay safe boyz..
 
Advertisement
simplycanes said:
Yes @ both of the above. As I have to remind people daily, there are a lot of "feels" (pun kind of intended) in many posters' responses, but "feels" and the law have nothing to do with one another.

The clause which leaves him a rudderless ship is, "in the university's reasonable judgment," and the time to fight that language was before he signed it. His choices have resulted in observable, "public disrespect" and "ridicule," the university and good luck demonstrating the university is unreasonable to judge them that way. Even if you have a sliver of hope you can, you still punted to THEIR judgement, as a university, of your conduct as their highest paid employee.

I am sure if we went diving through the universities 1,000 page code of conduct, to which he also agreed to adhere, there's plenty more for which his little rub-out session ran afoul, but it isn't necessary. I am certain they are saving that for litigation.
Click to expand...

beautifully put.

Hopefully his legal fees are purely on a contingency basis.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top