Eva Carneiro leaves Chelsea

[LinekersLegs]

He could but that's not an argument he wants to get into which was my point originally.

This case will set back equality because it has shown that a male manager can't discipline a female member of staff without running the risk of being accused of sexism and having the whole thing being blown up by a sexist media and public that feels the need to overprotect women.

No, he likely doesn't want to get into the argument because he'll probably have been informed that to suspend her for her facebook post would be legally overreaching and unlike you he doesn't want to be wrong multiple times.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

No, he likely doesn't want to get into the argument because he'll probably have been informed that to suspend her for her facebook post would be legally overreaching and unlike you he doesn't want to be wrong multiple times.

 

[RAFUH]

We've been over this it's not unlawful and whether it's unethical is debatable however it's a decision team medical staff have to make all the time and are often fired because the manager isn't happy. Martinez fired his last year.

Basically it's a case of a manager having a go at his medical staff, the media making a huge deal about it because she's a woman and her publicly embarrassing him after the fact. She doesn't have an unfair dismissal case any more than every other physio who has been fired would have one.

That fact that you would consider a physician not coming to the aid of their patient as debatably unethical says it all really.

 

[RAFUH]

So you will naturally be defensive of what she did and that's understandable but here's the thing. She can be right and Mourinho can still have a point especially in the heat of the moment. It's not the argument that has lead to her being permanently banned and now the unfair dismissal but rather the fact that she embarrassed him in public. You must understand that.

He embarrassed himself.

 

[RAFUH]

No, he likely doesn't want to get into the argument because he'll probably have been informed that to suspend her for her facebook post would be legally overreaching and unlike you he doesn't want to be wrong multiple times.

I think the underlying problem in both cases is that neither Mourinho or Adversus can conceive of themselves being wrong

 

[marty mcfly]

No, he likely doesn't want to get into the argument because he'll probably have been informed that to suspend her for her facebook post would be legally overreaching and unlike you he doesn't want to be wrong multiple times.

Legally - What law is he breaking by removing her from the bench and training sessions?

It's his job as the manager of the team to select players and staff for those positions. If you follow the logic that it's constructive dismissal because she can no longer do her job then what makes that different to a player having to play in the U21s.

However that's nonsense and she would know that. He hasn't broken any employment laws which is probably the reason why she is trying to get him on the sexism angle.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...earn-allegations-sexism-Jose-Mourinho-reports

This is what Mourinho said.

“Even if you are a kit man, a doctor or a secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game.

"I was sure he hadn’t a serious problem. He was very tired but my medical department, on an impulse, was naive and left me with eight outfield players on a counter-attack.”

A bit tenuous I think you would agree. She isn't arguing that he hasn't the right to remove her from the bench because she knows he does but rather that he doesn't have the right to do it because of his sexist views.

This is the problem because that precedent is going to make it difficult for women looking to be hired for this job in the future.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_dismissal

Wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is an idiom and legal phrase, describing a situation in which an employee'scontract of employment has been terminated by the employer in circumstances where the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision in employment law. It follows that the scope for wrongful dismissal varies according to the terms of the employment contract, and varies by jurisdiction. Note that the absence of a formal contract of employment does not preclude wrongful dismissal in jurisdictions in which ade facto contract is taken to exist by virtue of the employment relationship. Terms of such a contract may include obligations and rights outlined in anemployee handbook. Being terminated for any of the items listed below may constitute wrongful termination:[1]

• Discrimination: The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.
• Retaliation: An employer cannot fire an employee because the employee filed a claim of discrimination or is participating in an investigation for discrimination. In the United States, this "retaliation" is forbidden under civil rights law.
• Employee's refusal to commit an illegal act: An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
• Employer is not following own termination procedures: Often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

Wrongful dismissal will tend to arise first as a claim by the employee so dismissed. Many jurisdictions provide tribunals or courts which will hear actions for wrongful dismissal. A proven wrongful dismissal will tend to lead to two main remedies: reinstatement of the dismissed employee, and/or monetary compensation for the wrongfully dismissed.

So she could potentially be looking at 3 of those 4 items. Item 3 probably isn't valid, because I don't think it's technically illegal for the Doctors to not go onto the pitch in the situation that happened. Ethically you could make the argument that she should have gone on and there were regulations that she has to follow, but legally I don't think a law would have been broken had she refused to enter the pitch under the guise that she thought Hazard didn't need assistance

Point 4 could be tenuous, due to Chelsea having a clearly defined Social Media policy that she intentionally went against. A good solicitor could perhaps argue against that though. I'm guessing that there will be something in her Chelsea contract that absolves her of disciplinary measures so long as she acts within clearly defined regulations. It's in my contract for instance that I will follow all noted FSA guidelines, as well as keeping up to date of what those guidelines are. This protects me from disciplinary measures, so long as I can prove that anything I do is in line with regulations.

I would be surprised if her contract of employment didn't have something similar

Again, sorry to repeat myself, Mourinho will settle. If it goes to court, I can't see it going well for him

 

[marty mcfly]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_dismissal



So she could potentially be looking at 3 of those 4 items. Item 3 probably isn't valid, because I don't think it's technically illegal for the Doctors to not go onto the pitch in the situation that happened. Ethically you could make the argument that she should have gone on and there were regulations that she has to follow, but legally I don't think a law would have been broken had she refused to enter the pitch under the guise that she thought Hazard didn't need assistance

Point 4 could be tenuous, due to Chelsea having a clearly defined Social Media policy that she intentionally went against. A good solicitor could perhaps argue against that though. I'm guessing that there will be something in her Chelsea contract that absolves her of disciplinary measures so long as she acts within clearly defined regulations. It's in my contract for instance that I will follow all noted FSA guidelines, as well as keeping up to date of what those guidelines are. This protects me from disciplinary measures, so long as I can prove that anything I do is in line with regulations.

I would be surprised if her contract of employment didn't have something similar

Again, sorry to repeat myself, Mourinho will settle. If it goes to court, I can't see it going well for him

As others have said she hasn't been dismissed wrongfully or otherwise. They are arguing that it's constructive dismissal which given the context of football and a managers right to choose his bench and team it isn't.

If she brings the case then he will have to fight it. He can't be seen to be admitting to doing this for sexist reasons.

They might however settle before that time.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Legally - What's law is he breaking by removing her from the bench and training sessions?

It's his job as the manager of the team to select players and staff for those positions. If you follow the logic that it's constructive dismissal because she can no longer do her job then what makes that different to a player having to play in the U21s.

However that's nonsense and she would know that. He hasn't broken any employment laws which is probably the reason why she is trying to get him on the sexism angle.

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...earn-allegations-sexism-Jose-Mourinho-reports

This is what Mourinho said.

“Even if you are a kit man, a doctor or a secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game.

"I was sure he hadn’t a serious problem. He was very tired but my medical department, on an impulse, was naive and left me with eight outfield players on a counter-attack.”

A bit tenuous I think you would agree. She isn't arguing that he hasn't the right to remove her from the bench because she knows he does but rather that he doesn't have the right to do it because of his sexist views.

This is the problem and the precedent that is going to make it difficult for women doing this job in the future.

Because you need a reason to suspend someone, you can't just do it on a whim without opening yourself up to legal recourse. The two reasons that you have given, a) their treatment of Hazard b) her Facebook post, are not valid reasons to suspend either Fearn or Carneiro because in the first they are following medical guidelines (as will likely be emphasised by FIFA today) and in the second her post complied with company guidelines.

Mourinho could have chosen at any time to restructure their duties, and probably done so without causing any problems, he just can't do it because of the two reasons stated above without facing some legal headaches.

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Again, good solicitor could make a decent case for her here

He'll settle

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

Because you need a reason to suspend someone, you can't just do it on a whim without opening yourself up to legal recourse. The two reasons that you have given, a) their treatment of Hazard b) her Facebook post, are not valid reasons to suspend either Fearn or Carneiro because in the first they are following medical guidelines (as will likely be emphasised by FIFA today) and in the second her post complied with company guidelines.

Mourinho could have chosen at any time to restructure their duties, and probably done so without causing any problems, he just can't do it because of the two reasons stated above.

Just a quick challenge on point two, wasn't her Facebook post technically against the clubs social media guidelines?

 

[LinekersLegs]

Just a quick challenge on point two, wasn't her Facebook post technically against the clubs social media guidelines?

According to the Gaurdian article that Adversus helpfully provided earlier no

"Employees can have Facebook and Twitter accounts but they must not, for example, post criticisms of the club or the game’s governing bodies. Carneiro’s Facebook post did not transgress the guidelines and yet it succeeded in crossing a line with Mourinho."

Haven't seen Chelsea's guidelines in particular but it was a very mild and vague post that did not reference any person or the club - you could perhaps argue that it broke the spirit of the rule but even that is a bit of a stretch, especially if it was the only thing you were to base a suspension/demotion on.

 

[marty mcfly]

Because you need a reason to suspend someone, you can't just do it on a whim without opening yourself up to legal recourse. The two reasons that you have given, a) their treatment of Hazard b) her Facebook post, are not valid reasons to suspend either Fearn or Carneiro because in the first they are following medical guidelines (as will likely be emphasised by FIFA today) and in the second her post complied with company guidelines.

Mourinho could have chosen at any time to restructure their duties, and probably done so without causing any problems, he just can't do it because of the two reasons stated above without facing some legal headaches.

I never gave the treatment of Hazard as a reason. I gave her answering back to him during the game however I said that was a minor issue.

The main reason is clear. The Facebook message of support. She doesn't have to technically break a guideline which would lead to dismissal. She just has to do something which falls foul of him and is close to breaking a guideline.

She also wasn't suspended. He did just want to restructure her duties so she did a job as far away from him as possible. The problem is she doesn't want to accept that. She didn't want to accept that he had the power to remove her from the bench for the game against Chelsea and now she doesn't want to accept that he has the power to remove her from the 1st team altogether.

I accept Mourinho isn't in the right with what he did during the game but since then he has done the only thing he really could but she just refuses to accept his authority and is fighting him every step.

It really does strike me that this hasn't come out of the blue. This is more than a disagreement over one issue.

 

[tsubaki]

I never gave the treatment of Hazard as a reason. I gave her answering back to him during the game however I said that was a minor issue.

The main reason is clear. The Facebook message of support. She doesn't have to technically break a guideline which would lead to dismissal. She just has to do something which falls foul of him and is close to breaking a guideline.

She also wasn't suspended. He did just want to restructure her duties so she did a job as far away from him as possible. The problem is she doesn't want to accept that. She didn't want to accept that he had the power to remove her from the bench for the game against Chelsea and now she doesn't want to accept that he has the power to remove her from the 1st team altogether.

I accept Mourinho isn't in the right with what he did during the game but since then he has done the only thing he really could but she just refuses to accept his authority and is fighting him every step.

It really does strike me that this hasn't come out of the blue. This is more than a disagreement over one issue.

When her job is "first team doctor and assistant medical director", one would imagine that Mou removing her from all contact with the first team because she followed FA guidelines during an incident, and a subsequent facebook post, and slating her in the press both personally and indirectly for at least a couple of weeks, might well be considered as "conduct(ing) himself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between the employer and the employee" in constructive dismissal terms.

Obviously her making no public comment at all beyond that facebook post means she is "fighting him every step of the way", though.

 

[marty mcfly]

Just a quick challenge on point two, wasn't her Facebook post technically against the clubs social media guidelines?

I would have thought so and I think a good solicitor is making a case for constructive dismissal and they are using sexism as the argument which given the quote they are basing it on makes me believe she doesn't have any other basis to ague the case.