Harold Reynolds to sue ESPN [Archive]

View Full Version : Harold Reynolds to sue ESPN

DodgerBlue8188

10-31-2006, 11:20 AM

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AnnhOOPE_XasEDD.mVWewUgRvLYF?slug=ap-espn-reynolds&prov=ap&type=lgns

That is the link to the site.

BRISTOL, Conn. (AP) -- Harold Reynolds plans to sue ESPN over his departure from the network as a baseball analyst last summer.

Reynolds played 12 major league seasons and joined ESPN in 1996.
"I have tried everything possible to handle this situation quietly behind closed doors. After numerous conversations and multiple mediation discussions with ESPN executives, it is clear that ESPN had no intention of solving this problem amicably," Reynolds said in a statement.

"For 11 years, I served ESPN with enthusiasm and dedication. It is unfortunate that ESPN has handled this process in an unprofessional manner. At the end of the day, my integrity, reputation and family are my top priorities, and for those reasons I need to set the record straight and clear my name."

ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz said Monday that the network had been made aware that Reynolds either has filed a lawsuit or plans to in coming days.

"The suit is without merit," Krulewitz said. "We stand by our decision and have no further comment now that litigation has begun."

Old Sweater

10-31-2006, 12:23 PM

Hope Reynolds wins.

KCGHOST

10-31-2006, 12:29 PM

Let's hope whoever is right wins.

AznInvasion

10-31-2006, 12:46 PM

EvanAparra

10-31-2006, 12:49 PM

I still think firing Reynolds was an overreaction. His commentating and knowledge of the game is virtually unmatched. Why not punish him by taking away part of his salary or making him take like sexual harassment class or something. ESPN comes out losing no matter who wins the suit.
I think anyone who is really sexually harassing someone at work should be fired. If the woman overreacted to something that really wasn't sexual harassment then that's one thing, but if something really happened there's no reason to keep someone like that. Women don't go to work to get sexually harassed.

Williamsburg2599

10-31-2006, 01:17 PM

Was there any comfirmation on what ACTUALLY happend?

EvanAparra

10-31-2006, 01:21 PM

Was there any comfirmation on what ACTUALLY happend?
Thats always going to be hard to find.. If it makes Reynolds look bad, his lawyer will do anything possible to keep it from coming out..

cardsfanatic

10-31-2006, 02:45 PM

Mattingly

10-31-2006, 03:03 PM

I think anyone who is really sexually harassing someone at work should be fired. If the woman overreacted to something that really wasn't sexual harassment then that's one thing, but if something really happened there's no reason to keep someone like that. Women don't go to work to get sexually harassed.
Is there even a possibility that some of the things said in the top sports network may be said often. I'm certainly not condoning sexual harassment, but I sometimes wonder if he crossed a line that hadn't been crossed by others before. At times, I wonder what did he say, and was this acceptable in that line of work?

EvanAparra

10-31-2006, 03:05 PM

Is there even a possibility that some of the things said in the top sports network may be said often. I'm certainly not condoning sexual harassment, but I sometimes wonder if he crossed a line that hadn't been crossed by others before. At times, I wonder what did he say, and was this acceptable in that line of work?
Well, I hope its just something he said and not something he DID. Not really sure what happened..

Mattingly

10-31-2006, 03:16 PM

Well, I hope its just something he said and not something he DID. Not really sure what happened..
All depends. If he used a name about women that a woman in particular took exception to, that me be the so-called "hostile work environment" that people speak of. That would be what he'd "said".

If he put his hand on a woman's shoulder and left it there a bit too long, then that could be an issue also. That would be what he'd "done".

Right now, I don't know if he did and/or said something that others didn't. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he didn't. Then again, it could just be his disagreement on bashing Alex Rodriguez. Sometimes when one person doesn't follow the script, that person may be seen as ruffling features, rocking the boat, etc.

If this were just some fast food burger place, I think the scenario would be far less complex than what's happening here. Who complained, what was said and/or done, as opposed to what others said and/or did that didn't call for their dismissal? That's what I'd like to know.

EvanAparra

10-31-2006, 03:18 PM

If this were just some fast food burger place, I think the scenario would be far less complex than what's happening here. Who complained, what was said and/or done, as opposed to what others said and/or did that didn't call for their dismissal? That's what I'd like to know.

I suppose we will never know.

AznInvasion

10-31-2006, 03:29 PM

I think anyone who is really sexually harassing someone at work should be fired. If the woman overreacted to something that really wasn't sexual harassment then that's one thing, but if something really happened there's no reason to keep someone like that. Women don't go to work to get sexually harassed.
I'm not advocating sexual harassment...I'm just saying Harold Reynolds hasn't done anything in the past to make me think he actually did this. I agree with your statement though. Unless, HR did it blatantly and we have proof of his sexual harassment...I'm gonna still support Reynolds. Is there a possibility that it was a false claim just trying to get rid of Reynolds or maybe sue him for cash or something?

Mattingly

10-31-2006, 03:33 PM

I suppose we will never know.
Well, since he's suing, if testimony of this trial appears on CourtTV, CNN, etc, we may at least get some idea of this. However, I wouldn't expect the "whole truth" thing, since he's still got to work and offering every last tidbit of info for the news media (as well as Letterman and Leno) isn't exactly the brightest idea one could come across.

Hopefully, both sides won't smell like they've just lost a fierce battle with a skunk. If they do, then that may not be too far from the truth.

Mattingly

10-31-2006, 04:47 PM

Someone sent me a copy of his complaint, in PDF format (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html) (Adobe Acrobat download = 27.7MB).

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/docs/complaint_state_court_reynolds_10.30.06.pdf

Mattingly

10-31-2006, 05:04 PM

If you don't have PDF, then the text of the 5-page, double-spaced doc reads as follows (as copied directly from the PDF itself):
RETURN DATE: November 14, 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------x
HAROLD REYNOLDS, : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff ::
J.D. OF NEW BRITAIN
vs. :
ESPN, INC. : AT NEW BRITAIN
Defendant ::
---------------------------------------------------------------x October 30, 2006
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION

1. The plaintiff, Harold Reynolds, brings this claim for damages due to wrongful termination. Mr. Reynolds had a contract for six years that he reasonably anticipated would again be renewed, which defendant ESPN breached when it terminated his employment.

PARTIES

2. Mr. Reynolds is a citizen of United States and a resident of the State of Connecticut.

3. ESPN, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business in Bristol, Connecticut.

FIRST COUNT (Breach of Contract)

4. Mr. Reynolds worked for ESPN as an announcer for eleven (11) years, under four separate contracts. Prior to working for ESPN, Mr. Reynolds played professional baseball, during which time he won three Gold Glove awards, one stolen base title and made two All-Star appearances.

5. Because of his excellent moral character and charitable work, he received numerous awards and distinctions, including The Martin Luther King Humanitarian Award from the city of Seattle, the Roberto Clemente Award from Major League Baseball and the 195th Point of Light selection by President George H. W. Bush.

6. With ESPN, Mr. Reynolds was the lead analyst on its Baseball Tonight show, which won an Emmy award, and lead analyst for the College World Series. He was lead analyst and color analyst for the Little League World Series, which in 2005 received two Emmy nominations.

7. Mr. Reynolds was consistently a hard worker, with a polite, respectful and engaging personality. He was widely regarded as having an excellent moral character by persons who held anywhere from the highest positions at ESPN to ESPN's regular employees. He was an extraordinarily generous person, especially with children, but also with his coworkers. He does not drink, smoke or use foul language.

8. In March, 2006, based on his excellent past performance, Mr. Reynolds and ESPN agreed to a new six (6) year contract, which was longer than most announcer employment agreements. Each year of his contract provided the opportunity for compensation of approximately $1,000,000.

9. During negotiations for any contract, ESPN raised no specific concerns about any past conduct or performance, and ESPN indicated no reservations whatsoever about Mr. Reynolds' continued employment with it.

10. Under the contract, Mr. Reynolds could be terminated only for "failure to perform," which required "intentional or continual activities" contrary to ESPN's instructions, or else required "willful or egregious action... which would constitute an act of moral turpitude."

11. Upon information and belief, this termination provision is similar to that which exists in other management and on-air talent contracts for employees and announcers at ESPN.

12. On July 24, 2006, ESPN hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Reynolds, informing him that it had terminated his employment for cause. It provided no further explanation, and gave no specific reason or reasons.

13. ESPN's investigation preceding Mr. Reynolds' termination was significantly below the standards for an adequate investigation of alleged misconduct.

14. On August 2, Mr. Reynolds, through his attorney and in writing requested a copy of his full personnel file. To the date of this complaint, ESPN has refused to give Mr. Reynolds a copy of his personnel file, even though such disclosure is required by Connecticut law.

15. In addition, ESPN has refused to allow an employee of the Connecticut Department of Labor onto its premises so that the Labor Department can obtain a copy of Mr. Reynolds' personnel file.

16. Mr. Reynolds has never, in his career as a baseball player or with ESPN, intentionally engaged in a “failure to perform” his duties in any material respect. For example, he was punctual, well prepared, professional, creative and personable, both in the studio and on remote assignments.

17. As he truthfully has stated publicly, in July 2006 he gave a brief and innocuous hug to a female intern. The intern, at the time, never expressed any discomfort, and in fact had dinner with Mr. Reynolds at a Boston Market restaurant that same evening after he had given her this brief hug. Mr. Reynolds has never seen her since then, and upon information and belief she made no complaint until approximately three weeks later.

18. By its action in terminating Mr. Reynolds' employment, ESPN has breached his employment contract, and further caused Mr. Reynolds to lose foreseeable opportunities for future contract renewals .

19. As a result of such breach, Mr. Reynolds has suffered damages including loss of compensation under his contract, lost past and future endorsements, lost opportunities for future contracts, and interest on past losses, measured from the date of the breach.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff seeks the following relief:

1. Damages for the full contract period amounting to at least $5 million, including interest and lost past and future earnings;

2. Other consequential damages for the full contract period, and damages for lost future opportunities;

3. Such other legal relief as the Court deems appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
PLAINTIFF HAROLD REYNOLDS
By: __________________________________
Joseph D. Garrison
State Bar #21832
GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, CHIMES
& RICHARDSON, P.C.
405 Orange Street
New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Ph: (203) 777-4425 / Fax: (203) 776-3965
jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com
PLEASE ENTER MY APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

DownUnderDodger

10-31-2006, 05:18 PM

One presumes that it will (and should) all come out in trial if it goes to court, but I am guessing that it will not get that far and an amicable out of court settlement will be made, in which case the full details may never be revealed. In saying that, I would presume that if there is a real and fully valid reason for his dismissal and that is made fully known to Reynolds before it gets to court it will be settled out of court to avoid further embarrassment to Reynolds, however, if there is something underhanded being done by ESPN and his dismissal was not really valid, it will go to court. It is easy to speculate but unless the full story is revealed that is about all the only thing open to we who don't know the facts. So I guess we will just have to wait to see what what transpires, and hold off on the speculation. Whichever way it goes I hope that the innocent party(s) win out.

efin98

10-31-2006, 07:17 PM

According to the filing he isn't confirming or denying any wrongdoing for being fired, he's goign after them for firing him for the wrong reason.

10. Under the contract, Mr. Reynolds could be terminated only for "failure to perform," which required "intentional or continual activities" contrary to ESPN's instructions, or else required "willful or egregious action... which would constitute an act of moral turpitude."

To me that states that even if he breached their internal rules on harassment he can't be fired for it, he has to screw up on air and continually to be fired.

hudsonharden

10-31-2006, 07:47 PM

It's a shame Johnny Cochran isn't alive to take this case, I'm sure he's come up with a clever rhyme to get Harold off the hook...

redlegsfan21

10-31-2006, 08:02 PM

Is it just me or is ESPN losing all their baseball analysts.

ESPNFan

10-31-2006, 08:33 PM

ESPN had better settle given the stuff they have put up with from Torico and Phillips. There going to get kiklled on why those two are still employed at The World Wide Leader.

plask_stirlac

11-01-2006, 10:28 PM

Anybody can and usually does criticize ESPN already.

ChrisLDuncan

11-01-2006, 10:45 PM

EvanAparra

11-01-2006, 11:02 PM

Hope Harold wins, he was a likeable and smart (execpt for A-Rod) guy. ESPN should give him his job (or Joe Morgan's) back. Hell call the show "Harold Reynold's Baseball Tonight" or "Baseball with Harold Reynolds" and make him the host.
I hope he wins too, if he really didn't do anything wrong. I hope his lawsuit goes down in flames if he really did sexually harass a co-worker.

ChrisLDuncan

11-01-2006, 11:10 PM

I hope he wins too, if he really didn't do anything wrong. I hope his lawsuit goes down in flames if he really did sexually harass a co-worker.

Read the PDF file like it says that he hugged her, the next day they had dinner at the Boston Market, and like three weeks later she sued. Looks like something taken out of context too me.

EvanAparra

11-01-2006, 11:13 PM

Read the PDF file like it says that he hugged her, the next day they had dinner at the Boston Market, and like three weeks later she sued. Looks like something taken out of context too me.
I'm guessing this is his account of what happened?

ChrisLDuncan

11-01-2006, 11:19 PM

I'm guessing this is his account of what happened?

:laugh :laugh one would assume that the defense of ESPN not be as incompetent to do this (however they did give Steve Phillips (he actually wasn't bad durring the winter meetings) a job. So who knows. But yes this was the complaint that Harold filed.

EvanAparra

11-01-2006, 11:26 PM

:laugh :laugh one would assume that the defense of ESPN not be as incompetent to do this (however they did give Steve Phillips (he actually wasn't bad durring the winter meetings) a job. So who knows. But yes this was the complaint that Harold filed.
Well then i'm guessing this is less than half of the story, but I will reserve judgement.

ChrisLDuncan

11-01-2006, 11:35 PM

Well then i'm guessing this is less than half of the story, but I will reserve judgement.

You sound like a fair minded man.

sandlot

11-02-2006, 09:16 AM

We're all speculating, but looking at Reynolds' complaint it appears that he's arguing that whatever transpired does not constitute repeated behavior nor an act of moral turpitude. What is interesting, though, is all that's left out. What was he doing having dinner with an intern in the first place, much less on the evening of the same day when the innocuous (to him) "brief hug" had occurred? How did that dinner invite happen and when? Was it an effort to smooth over a potential problem? Build staff morale? This guy's in the media and he's never heard of anyone famous having problems with an intern? It hasn't occurred to him that he's a Big Name and a mature man getting paid a million a year, and she's lucky if she's getting school lunch money? We're supposed to assume that he's unaware of the power relationship that's at work here? Then his complaint says that he didn't see her again after the dinner. Hmmm. Odd. Why not? Bad oysters? She never come back to the office to continue her internship and just disappeared? So, three weeks pass and then comes her complaint. Gold digging? Or is this about the length of time that a young person might need to think about what's transpired, work out her feelings, talk with friends and family, discuss it with a supervisor and then speak with a lawyer? Maybe, like a lot of people who are victims (I'm not saying that she is one, as we don't have any facts), she needed time to reflect on her own behavior and to be sure in her own mind that she wasn't to blame for anything. I have no idea whatsover if any of this transpired, but is it any less plausible an account, given what the complaint itself outlines, as is the description of Reynolds as the embodiment of diligence and probity?

Blackout

11-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Women don't go to work to get sexually harassed.

maybe Harold thought ESPN had strip clubs?

Mattingly

11-06-2006, 10:00 AM

NY Daily News sports editor interviewed Harold for this piece:

Reynolds vs. ESPN
Fired broadcaster states his case to Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/468326p-394125c.html)
It did not take long for Harold Reynolds to respond to the question. Eventually, the lawsuit he has filed against ESPN will be settled, but the residue left on an industry built on ego and perception might linger a lot longer.

And could cost him, big time.

Is Reynolds cognizant of the fact that his decision to take on a giant company such as Disney, which owns ESPN, could brand him a troublemaker and cast him in the role of an industry pariah that no executive will hire?

"I was counseled by a lot of people who told me, 'Hey move on man. It will blow over, it will go away.' I couldn't do it. I just can't do it," Reynolds told me over the telephone. "This is not right. I've not been treated properly. I've seen this happen to numerous people. It's time to stand up and say enough is enough."

Last Tuesday, in a New Britain, Conn., court, Reynolds, who for 10 years was a marquee analyst on "Baseball Tonight," filed a lawsuit against ESPN claiming breach of contract. The lawsuit - Reynolds is asking for $5 million in damages - stems from ESPN's decision to abruptly fire him last July.

At the time, ESPN brass did not give a reason for its action. A variety of outlets, quoting unamed sources, reported that Reynolds was terminated for violating the company's sexual harassment policy. Reynolds believes ESPN leaked the "reason" for his dismissal to select reporters.

According to the lawsuit, Reynolds, 45, contends he was fired for what transpired in July when he gave "a brief, innocuous hug to a female intern" who did not express any "discomfort." She later had dinner with him at a Boston Market restaurant. Reynolds, according to the lawsuit, has not seen the woman since that dinner.

ESPN contends that Reynolds' lawsuit is "without merit." The network stands by its decision to fire Reynolds. ESPN declined further comment while the matter is in litigation.

Since Reynolds' dismissal, mediation sessions between him and ESPN executives were held in an effort to reach a financial settlement. Money has a lot do with all of this. In March, Reynolds signed a six-year deal with ESPN believed to be worth $6 million.

The mediation sessions were not fruitful, leading to Reynolds filing the lawsuit. Now, his life is filled with uncertainty. At times, he is frightened.

"You sit back and think you may never work again," Reynolds said. "I don't know what's going to happen . . . But fear is the unknown. And the unknown is I don't know. That's a scary proposition."

One network executive told me that Reynolds' decision to sue ESPN could brand him a "troublemaker" in the industry. The exec said he would be reluctant to hire him. Still, another executive, who has spoken extensively with Reynolds since he was fired, said "time" and our "second-chance" nature will work in Reynolds' favor.

"After all, this is America," the honcho said. "He's a talent. I'm not here to second-guess ESPN, but Harold deserves a second chance as a broadcaster. And knowing what I know about the story involved, he deserves another shot in the studio, somewhere."

Reynolds is caught between an uncertain future and dealing with today. While he did not talk about the specifics of the case, Reynolds, who is married and has an infant daughter, looked back to the decision-making process at ESPN that brought him to this point.