If you read the letter, you'd know that there may be more than a few undotted I's and uncrossed T's on LSU's part -she was told, without specifics, that a storm was brewing 24hrs before being told that 1. she had violated a written university policy that is uniformly and strictly enforced and 2. she had two hours to resign or get put on unpaid leave. - sadly, this is actually considered extortion, irrespective of the existance of the policy or whether she had violated it or not. If you catch someone embezzling from you, and you demand your money back or you are going to the cops, you are commiting extortion. A few prominant cases here in LA in which the thief won in court. -there is no such policy at LSU (against student-instructor or coach-player relationships) and "enforcement" of the unwritten rule has been selective. THe case referenced in the letter was (I am told) clearly an awful abuse of power on the part of the instructor who was fired in the 1980's, but he won in court because there was, and still isn't, a policy against such behavior at LSU. This is apparently not an oversight on LSU's part, but rather a deliberate effort avoid addressing a legal and professional sticky area. (no pun intended) - LSU had (still has?) no idea if the allegations were true, because they did not contact any of the people involved. They didn't (don't) even know who the alleged player(s) were. -If she was forced to resign under false pretenses (and under duress/extortion?), and if a true firing would have had to be without cause (since no policy was violated), and since her contract calls for payment of the remaining contract if fired without cause, then she deserves that money. -So LSU is accused of using an unsubstantiated accusation, as well as lies regarding it's own policies, to force an employee to choose between a quiet resignation or a very public administrative (unpaid) leave. Oh, and decide within two hours, before you can figure out that we are bluffing. . . This is my interpretation of the events, and I am neither in-the-know nor an attorney. I believe the rumors/hearsay about her and a player are true, or she would not have resigned/been bluffed, and I believe she should have lost her job over it. It's just that LSU had no grounds for firing her with cause and tried a fast one. If accruate, LSU really handled this poorly and set themselves up for a pooch screwin'.
This is what her attorneys allege. If LSU denies this, then Pokey has to prove it. Another allegation. This seems to be consistent with how LSU handled the softball coach situation, which was remarkably similar to Pokeys. Pokey also has a morality clause in her contract. There is no LSU policy against employee/student relationships, but Pokey is neither a civil sevice employee nor an unclassified, appointed employee. She is a contract employee and there is a morality clause in her contract. Not exactly true. The departmental investigation barely started before Pokey resigned, so there was no need to continue it. But the AD knows the whole story by now. You are buying the arguments her attorney made as if they were facts. Some of these allegations won't hold water in court. LSU isn't going to fight this in the newsapapers because of student privacy issues, but they could refute all of this in court. Unproven allegations. More unproven allegations. You really are only seeing one side of the story with that MOP letter. LSU can dispute all of this. Mary Olive Pierson is being very public because she wants to bluff LSU into a fat settlement. If it doesn't happen she has to prove all of this. Johnny Cochran said before the OJ trial that he would prove that other people killed Nicole. Of course that never happened, it was just a lawyer spinning for his client.
All true, and I should have led off with "according to her attorney. . .". Most of the comments that preceeded mine seemed uninformed of Pokey's stated position (huh huh) even though it had been linked to. I have yet to hear LSU's version. Regarding the morality clause, I think LSU would have a tough time argueing that pokey behaved immorally, since LSu (allegedly) doesn't discourage this behavior in their own analagous employees. The only arguement would be (it seems to me) that such behavior violates societal norms. While I agree, frankly, they will nevertheless open themselves up to accusations that the homosexuality is the real obvious immoral act in the eyes of LSU, not the mentor-student thing. This could get ugly. The thought of Jesse and Al along with all of the Democratic hopefuls converging on BR in support of the abused downtrodden black gay woman sickens me. THe thought of LSU caving to avoid this scenario, if they are in the legal right, sickens me even more. If Pokey's atty is telling the truth, then LSU owes her that money, because of their own ineptitude in writing a contract that forbids the behavior noone seems to be denying occurred.
Turning into a he-said she-said thing, and that is in LSU's favor, as pokey seems to have the burden of proof, having signed the resignation. It still begs the question, though: what would have been formally investigated by LSU, in the abscence of a resignation, if the only offense was actually not an offense in the eyes of LSU?
