Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew
I’m curious what the lawyers here think. Since Peters was able to negotiate his “resignation”, what do you think he got out of that?
Generally when coaches are “fired”, they are simply relieved of their duties and remain under contract and are paid as before. No cause is required as their employment contract essentially remains in effect.
In this case, presumably Flames no longer wanted Peters under contract with the organization so his contract was terminated. Did they pay him what he was due in a lump sum? If they paid him what he was due, where was his leverage? Did the Flames want to pay him less than he was due, thereby giving Peters something to negotiate?
Also Treliving was very careful not to say anything about Peters at all. Presumably Peters was able to atleast threaten that any negative statement about him whatsoever would be considered slanderous as all he had admitted to was the one instance of using a racial slur.
|
I am not a lawyer or anything but I suspect the difference is this. When almost all coaches are fired, it's for poor or perceived poor performance. A lot of coaches end up finding work in the league in some capacity afterwards and their contracts are generally guaranteed.
Where the Peter's situation got a little hairy was the vote of confidence he got from Tre a few days prior. " Our coaching staff isn't going anywhere" was the quote. Then the allegations came out and we all know what happened there.
With Peter's "resigning" from the role instead of being fired for racist comments, the team isn't the one labeling him a racist and can't be held liable if he can't find employment in the NHL again.
Perhaps I am wrong but I suspect that the parties agreed to have Peter's get the full value of his contract and would sign a waiver to not sue for future damages.