1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harold Reynolds to sue ESPN

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by tommyp, Oct 31, 2006.

  1. Gold

    Gold Active Member

    Assume for the sake of argument Harold Reynolds had problems regarding sexual harrassment. The suit claims ESPN didn't give him notice or an explanation, and wouldn't allow him to review his personnel file. This makes me wonder. When you fire somebody outright, you have to have all of your i's dotted and your t's crossed. If he takes them into court, it's possible the whole thing about Tirico comes out and a lot of other things which they wouldn't want public are revealed. This isn't firing somebody who dresses up as one of the Seven Dwarfs at Disneyland, but you wonder how ESPN/Disney handled this.
     
  2. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0207072reynolds1.html">
    The folks at The Smoking Gun</a> have their hands on Reynolds' ESPN contract. My god, they are very specific. I can't imagine a newspaper person signing a contract that is that specific, but I'm sure there are some writers who do.
     
  3. Exactly ...

     
  4. Dude

    Dude Well-Known Member

    Maybe Sean Salisbury's dong will be administered as evidence. :-X
     
  5. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    My thoughts exactly when I saw this. If Salisbury still has a job for flashing pictures on his Sprint phone to every woman at the World Wide Leader, what Reynolds got canned for seems quite tame by comparison.
     
  6. daveevansedge

    daveevansedge Member

    Unless there's some serious info we're all missing, I don't see how the WWL doesn't end up forking over some dough. Salisbury remaining employed seems to give Reynolds and his lawyers all the ammo they'd need.
     
  7. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    Because we don't know what preceeded the firing of Reynolds. My educated guess is that he had at least one incident in the past and ESPN told him/he acknowledged that any other complaint against him would result in his immediate termination.

    Having said that, if Salisbury did what we've read about on the web (and that's a big if), I can't imagine why he wasn't fired.
     
  8. leo1

    leo1 Active Member

    so ESPN will fork over a few million bucks in a settlement and the WWL will live another day.
     
  9. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

  10. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    You sound like you work there.
     
  11. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Where? Big Lead? He wishes.
     
  12. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Did Dan Patrick weigh in on this at all? I'm thinking he'd be free to talk about it now. Has he had Reynolds on his show at all? And I really wonder how ESPN handles harrassment complaints given the number of jocks it hires straight from the ballfield.
    I gather ESPN blinked when it got a look at some of the discovery in the case. I just wish the WWL did as good of a job covering itself as it did the I. Thomas case and Balco.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page