Philadelphia Area Employment Lawyer

Am I Entitled to Unemployment in Pennsylvania if I Accept a Voluntary Lay-Off?

2012-01-27T09:57:00.006-05:00

My Employer Said it Would Not Contest My Pennsylvania Unemployment Claim; What Does That Mean?

I receive many phone calls from employees who accepted a voluntary lay-off (“reduction in force” or “RIF”) with a promise from their employer that it “would not contest unemployment,” only to later be denied unemployment benefits by the Pennsylvania Unemployment Service Center. Let me explain how this works.

When you apply for unemployment benefits, the Unemployment Service Center will immediately write to your employer to confirm your wages and the reason that you are no longer employed. Correctly believing that it is required to provide such truthful information to the Service Center, the company truthfully states that you voluntarily accepted a RIF. In the employer's mind, and in fact, merely telling the Service Center these facts does not constitute "contesting your claim."

If I Accept a Voluntary Layoff, Can I Get Unemployment Benefits in Pennsylvania?

Depending upon the circumstances, the acceptance of a voluntary RIF is deemed a voluntary quit. The key here is whether you were in line for immediate termination if you did not accept the voluntary RIF. Unless you were slated for immediate termination (absent accepting the voluntary RIF), accepting the voluntary RIF will be deemed to be a quit "without necessitous and compelling reason," and you will be ineligible for benefits.

However, if you were given the choice between immediate termination and voluntary RIF, and selected the RIF, you will be eligible for unemployment, provided that your termination was indeed imminent. If this option is presented to you, you should call an employment lawyer at once prior to accepting or rejecting the offer. The key here is that your termination must be imminent not, for example, something that will very likely occur a week, month or year down the road.

What is Better, Severance or Unemployment Benefits?

Of course, the main dilemma one faces is weighing the benefits of the severance and benefits offered in connection with the RIF against the value of the unemployment benefits you receive if you are terminated as part of a RIF (if you are RIFed, you will be entitled to unemployment benefits – assume your benefits will be the equivalent of roughly 10% of your earnings, with the maximum being $575 per week for at least 26 weeks).

Additional questions on Pennsylvania Unemployment Law? Click Here to go to our Post addressing FAQs on a wide variety of Pennsylvania unemployment law issues.

#20 at Giants Stadium After DeSean Jackson Punt Return, 2010

Click Here to read our answers to the most common employment law related questions. We discuss discrimination, retaliation, overtime, independent contractor claims, Family and medical leave rights, and more.

Thank you for visiting my site, John A. Gallagher, Esquire.

Voluntary Retirement and Unemployment in Pennsylvania

2012-01-26T18:38:00.013-05:00

My Employer Said It Would Not Contest My Claim for Pennsylvania Unemployment, So Why Am I Being Denied Benefits?

I receive many phone calls from employees who accepted early retirement benefits with a promise from their employer that it “would not contest unemployment,” only to later be denied unemployment benefits by the Pennsylvania Unemployment Service Center. Let me explain how this works.

In order to be eligible for unemployment compensation in Pennsylvania, you must be available for suitable work. Thus, the first inference drawn by Unemployment when you advise that you are no longer employed because you “took early retirement,” is that you have retired not just from your former job, but from all employment. Since true retirees by definition are presumed to no longer be looking for work, the Service Center will immediately lean towards denying you benefits on the grounds that you are not available for suitable work.

The Service Center will then contact your former employer, and ask it to provide truthful information as to why you are no longer employed. Correctly believing that it is required to provide such truthful information to the Service Center, the company truthfully states that you took early retirement. In the employer's mind, and in fact, merely telling the Service Center these facts does not constitute "contesting your claim."

Can I Get PA Unemployment Benefits If I Retire from My Job?

However, you can get over that hurdle by advising that you merely retired from your former job, but are still interested in pursuing employment.

Assuming you are not truly retired, the next (and biggest) problem you have is that your retirement was voluntary. A voluntary retirement is considered a voluntary quit. If you retire in order to obtain a severance or retirement benefits, but would otherwise have remained employed had you not elected to retire, you will not be entitled to unemployment benefits.

You Can Get Unemployment Benefits in PA if You "Retire" in Lieu of Immediate Termination

However, if you were given the choice between immediate termination and early retirement, and selected early retirement, you will be eligible for unemployment, provided that your termination was indeed imminent. If this option is presented to you, you should call an employment lawyer at once prior to accepting or rejecting the offer. The key here is that your termination must be imminent not, for example, something that will very likely occur a week, month or year down the road.

Can an Offer of Retirement Versus Termination be Evidence of Unlawful Age Discrimination?

I should note, also, that if you are given the option between retirement and immediate termination, there is a reasonable likelihood that your age is playing a role in the employer's decision-making. If that is the case, you may very well have an age discrimination claim. Hence, where such circumstances are presented to you, you should certainly consult with a qualified employment lawyer before making a decision on the options presented to you by your employer.

Of course, the main dilemma one faces is weighing the benefits of the severance and benefits offered in connection with the RIF against the value of the unemployment benefits you receive if you are terminated as part of a RIF (if you are RIFed, you will be entitled to unemployment benefits – assume your benefits will be the equivalent of roughly 10% of your earnings, with the maximum being $575 per week). The dilemma is intensified because, in most cases, you will only ne provided the retirement benefits if you sign a Release, which will eliminate your right to later file a lawsuit for age discrimination.

Additional questions on Pennsylvania Unemployment Law? Click Here to go to our Post addressing FAQs on a wide variety of Pennsylvania unemployment law issues.

John and His Lovely Wife, Katherine

Interested in the soup to nuts on employment law in general? Click Here to read our explanation of the most significant principles faced by employees in the United States.

Thank you for visiting my site, John A. Gallagher, Esquire.

FILING A CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION IN PENNSYLVANIA - A FEW TIPS

2012-01-09T19:56:00.006-05:00

Do I have to file a Charge of Discrimination with a state or federal agency before I can file a lawsuit in Pennsylvania?

Yes, you do. And, if you do not file one within a specified period of time, your rights to ever file a lawsuit will be lost forever.

If you believe that you have been subjected to a hostile work environment, have been a victim of sexual harassment, have been treated in an unlawful discriminatory fashion or have been subjected to illegal retaliation because you sought to protect your rights under statutes such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act, then you must file a Charge of Discrimination with state and/or federal agencies before you can file a lawsuit in state or federal court.

In Pennsylvania, the state agency that you may file a Charge of Discrimination with is called the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”).

NOTE: Employees who work in the City of Philadelphia may also file a Charge of Discrimination with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (“PCHR”). This Post does not focus on PCHR, instead dealing with PHRC and EEOC only.

Employees of larger companies (see below) also have the right to file a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which is operated by the United States Government.

The relationship between the state and federal agencies identified above can be very complicated. For purposes of this Post, I want to talk about how your choice of where to file first can affect your right to later file suit in court.

Am I protected from illegal discrimination and retaliation under both state and federal laws?

Yes, depending upon the size of your employer. Federal law came first in the form of Title VII. State laws such as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) then followed.

In many regards, Pennsylvania's state laws and federal laws such as Title VII are virtually identical. However, there are some very important distinctions.

For example, Title VII only protects employees that work for companies that have more than 15 employees. If you work for smaller company, say one that has 10 employees, you will be protected under Title VII.

Pennsylvania law, on the other hand, protects employees that work for companies that have more than 4 him employees. So, if you work for a company that has more than 4 but less than 15 employees, your only rights under discrimination laws are found under PHRA.

In addition, Title VII “caps” the amount of money that you can recover in a lawsuit. Stated otherwise, it limits the amount of money you to recover, no matter how much a jury awards to you. Pennsylvania law, on the other hand, contains no such “caps.”

Should I file a Charge of Discrimination under both state and federal laws?

Provided that the company in question has 15 or more employees, absolutely. In such instances, most people file a federal lawsuit under Title VII, and include state claims as well. In this way, a plaintiff may take advantage of the faster federal court system and broader geographic reach of the jury pool (and thus avoid being “hometowned” by a prominent local employer), while at the same time taking advantage of the PHRA’s more generous damage provisions (i.e. no “caps” on recovery).

How long do I have the file a Charge of Discrimination in Pennsylvania?

To preserve all of your rights under PHRA, you must file a Charge of Discrimination within 180 days of the act(s) you believe to be unlawful. Sometimes, that act may be a suspension, demotion or a failure to promote. In most cases, it will be the date you are terminated. Figuring out on what date your rights were first violated can sometimes be complicated, and you should seek counsel to discuss.

NOTE: Since terminations most frequently spark discrimination charges – let me make clear: Any employee that believes that his\her termination was illegal must file a Charge of Discrimination with the PHRC within 180 days of the termination or all rights under PHRA will be lost.

To preserve all of your rights under federal laws such as Title VII, you must file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the act(s) you believe to be unlawful.

Do I file my Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC or with the Pennsylvania state agency, PHRC?

I almost always file with the EEOC first, and ask it to notify PHRC that I have filed a Charge, so that PHRC may docket the charge as well (provided I am doing so within 180 days of the illegal act(s) at issue – if more than 180 days have passed, I just file with EEOC). This is known as “dual filing."

I seldom file with PHRC first.

Why?

A person initially filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC may, after the passage of 180 days, ask EEOC to issue a “Right to Sue” letter. With such “Right to Sue” letter in hand, the Charging Party may then file a suit in federal court without further delay. Thereafter, I advise PHRC that I have filed suit and it will close its case, so that I may add state law claims to my federal lawsuit.

A person initially filing a Charge of Discrimination with the PHRC, on the other hand, must wait at least one year before he\she may file suit under either state or federal law. So, if you file with PHRC first, that you cannot get a Right to Sue letter from EEOC until after at least one year has passed, even though if you had filed with EEOC first, you could have gotten Right to Sue letter after 6 months and proceeded to court.

Since, in most cases, the EEOC and PHRC have little opportunity to complete their investigation of Charges of Discrimination within a 12 month period of time, those with solid claims who wish to have their rights adjudicated in court in an expeditious fashion should file or Charge of Discrimination with EEOC, dual filing with PHRC, and proceed accordingly.

NOTE: If you do not have counsel, you may find that the PHRC will do more to investigate your claim, and you may want to file there first accordingly.

Questions About Pennsylvania Unemployment Law? Click Here - we answer many of them!

Questions About Employment Laws? Click Here - we answer many of them!

The Author & Friends - Immediately After DJax Punt Return Giants Stadium 12/19/10

John A. Gallagher, Esquire, Philadelphia Area Employment Lawyer for Employees

McQueary Testifies at Preliminary Hearing

2011-12-16T15:29:00.000-05:00

Click Here for full report from ESPN.

I will be analyzing his testimony and posting on it in the coming days.

Transcript of Taped Conversation Between Bobby Davis and Laurie Fine in Syracuse Case

2011-11-30T16:48:00.004-05:00

Overview of Syracuse Scandal

Bernie Fine: In Happier Times

Recently, former Syracuse ball boy Bobby Davis and two others have come forward and accused former Syracuse basketball assistant head coach Bernie Fine of molestation. Bobby Davis's credibility quotient rose appreciably when a tape he made 8 years ago of a conversation between he and Fine's wife, Laurie, recently surfaced. Although Davis had turned the tape over to ESPN and a Syracuse newspaper more than 8 years ago, it had remained largely secret until this past week. Below is a transcript of the conversation.

If you want to hear some interesting audio clips of the conversation, Click Here.

To read our full recap of the Syracuse scandal, Click Here.

Here is Transcript of Taped Call Between Bobby Davis and Laurie Fine

Bobby: Hello Laurie. It’s Bobby.

Laurie: Hi Bobby.

Bobby: You said to call you Monday or Tuesday.

Laurie: Hold on. Let me get someone else off the other line.

Bobby Davis

Laurie: Sorry.

Bobby: I was thinking about calling Bernie, just to talk to him. But I didn’t know if it was a good idea or a bad idea.

Laurie: I wouldn’t call him.

Bobby: A bad idea?

Laurie: Bernie gets something in his head ...

Bobby: Yeah.

Laurie: I’m not telling you what (crosstalk) ... I’m advising you. He carries a grudge. He feels like you owed him that money and he wants it and...

Bobby: That money from like...? Remember we talked about this the last time? Like he’s still talking about that then?

Laurie: Him? That’s his big bone of contention. If you ...

Bobby: How about that stuff at Manley, when he came and threatened me and everything? Remember I called you that day and I was scared?

Laurie: Right.

Bobby: I just said Bernie I’m not going to pay you for all the things, for what you done to me and what you put me through. I think we’re even, whatever. You know. He thought it was good then because he thought I was going to talk to him again.

...

Laurie: He felt like he lent you the money. You said you were going to pay him back. And you didn’t and that’s the end of it. He says, ‘I’ll check off my losses but I will never forget.’ ‘That’s up to you.’

Bobby: Like he did nothing wrong. You know, all the stuff he’s done to me ...

Laurie Fine

Laurie: To him ....

Bobby: I think he really has a problem like that. He doesn’t think he does anything wrong.

Laurie: No, he doesn’t think he does anything wrong. And Bernie is also in denial. I think he did the things he did, but he’s — somehow through his own mental telepathy — erased them out of his mind.

...

Bobby: I kind of, like, I said, Bernie, leave me alone or I’m going to tell some people about what happened, what you did to me. He was like it was no big deal. Like, whatever. Like he’s never done anything.

Laurie: I don't think he even acknowledges what happened. I think he did it and he might’ve been — I don’t know — in another ... (cut off)

Bobby: You think I’m the only one he’s ever done that to?

Laurie: No.

...

Bobby: So.. You don’t think I’m the only one that did it.

Laurie: No, I don’t but ... I don't know ... you’re asking me: should you talk to (Bernie)? No, cause what’s to talk about? It’s the same ..

Bobby: I’m having issues with the thing. Like I’m just struggling with it a little.

Laurie: Well, I mean, I’m not a good sweep-it-under-the-rug kind of person. You’re only going to end up getting hurt in the long run again.

Bobby: I know. As much as I try to avoid it, I try to stay away from it. I think about it every day. I don’t know. There’s so much history there, you know.

Laurie: Oh, I understand that.

Bobby: You’re the only one who really knows, like, me and you.

Laurie: I just think you’re going to set yourself up and what have you really got to gain from doing anything, from trying to confront him to talk to him?

Bobby: I don’t know. Just because he’s been there all that time.

Laurie: The thing with Bernie is if you run across paths in years to come, that’s one thing but ...

Bobby: You’ve never see him do anything with anybody else, have you?

Laurie: No.

Bobby: That one time you told me you saw him, like when I was really young, you saw him through the basement window when you were taking the garbage out?

Laurie: Right. I don't know. Is this bothersome to you?

Bobby: Yeah it is. Lately it has been. It hit me hard. I really don’t know why.

...

Bobby: You don’t think he needs help? Or is it too late?

Laurie: I don’t know.

Bobby: That’s what I keep thinking: maybe ... I feel bad. All the stuff he did to me when I was younger, you know what I mean. (unintelligible) I tried to do something, he tried to grab me.

Laurie: He doesn’t learn.

Bobby: Exactly. Like the last time at Manley, the last time I saw him , I told him it’s over...

Laurie: No one’s with you, are they?

Bobby: No, no. I wouldn’t ... Laurie.

Laurie: I know.

Bobby: When I called...

Laurie: (unintelligible) about peoples privacy and I ... not that I think you're going to.

Bobby: Is anyone there?

Laurie: No. Not that I think you’re gonna record anything I say, but I’m very cautious about what I say.

Bobby: The thing about Bernie, I called him a pedophile and all this, and he still goes to Manley and he still tries to grab me in his office. He shuts the door.

...

Laurie: No I don’t. I just think, I think there might have been others. but it was geared to you. There was something about you...

Bobby: That’s what I was wondering. Like, why was I the worst one?

Laurie: You know, Bobby, again ... When he goes out of town, I don’t know anything. I don't think... I’m involved with the kids. I don’t see anything else. I used to live, eat, sleep and drink basketball. Now, I am so the other end the last few years that I couldn’t tell you the recruits they have. Because I just don’t care.

...

Bobby: I remember you wrote him a letter once and he never ...

Laurie: He never even responded to it, so you know what? You give up after a while.

Bobby: That’s why I think he needs help. I don’t know if it’s too late.

Laurie: He’s going to be 60 in a few years. What are you going to do to rehabilitate someone like that? What are you going to do?

Bobby: That’s what I keep thinking, maybe if I would’ve said something about him a long time ago, maybe he would’ve gotten some help.

Laurie: He doesn’t think he needs help. Because if I say to him...

Bobby: He likes boys. I mean, he likes. ...

Laurie: When I told him, you know .... When we talked, I felt really bad you were calling me over a year ago about this whole money thing? I said to him, um, ‘You know Bobby and I talked. I know some things about you that, if you keep pushing, are going to be let out.’ He didn’t even flinch.

Bobby: I know, that’s what I’m saying.

Laurie: He says, Let him go. Let him go ahead. Let him go right ahead.

Bobby: He doesn’t think he could be (unintelligible).

Laurie: I think he thinks he’s above the law.

Bobby: I’ve always thought that but especially after he came and grabbed me by the neck in front of everybody at Manley, you know, I’m like what the heck. And I tell him, ‘Bernie, if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna tell ... you know, go talk to someone.’ He goes, ‘Do what you gotta do. Whatever.’

Laurie: That’s his line: do what you gotta do.

...

Bobby: What about the money, like he said I owe him for ... I went to Hawaii with him.

Laurie: He said, Laurie, he came to me and told me he’d pay me back within two years. So I gave him the money on good faith that I’ll get it back.

Bobby: Good faith? Laurie, can I tell you about what happened? (laughs) You probably don’t even want to know.

Laurie: Oh, I’d love to know because — you know what? — I don't have that intimate, lovey feeling with Bernie. So I...

Bobby: He gave me some money but it ...

Laurie: How much did he give you?

Bobby: I think it was $4,000. It was in three installments. This is what happened: I was so mad at the time. I was thinking about a lot, I was going through a lot. It was just to try to get even with him ... I told him I had a school loan. I was just thinking of a way ... Maybe it was the wrong thing to do, and I feel bad about it now. And he did give me about $4,000, in three installments. It was in the summer...

Laurie: (unintelligible) You had a student loan you wanted to pay off.

Bobby: That’s what I’m talking about. This was something I had to say. It had to be three, four summers ago now, right?

Laurie: Oh yeah, oh yeah.

Bobby: So four summers ago. (Editor’s note: Bobby was in his mid-20s at the time.) It was when you were in Scott Ave., whatever, it was in the house. He called me. It must’ve been during camp, too, I’m thinking, because he came over during lunch. He’s like, here, I’ve got this amount, and I’ll give you some more tomorrow, but then he’d make me do something.

Laurie: What did he want you to do? You can be honest with me.

Bobby: What do you think? What he always does.

Laurie: He wants you to grab him? Or blow him?

Bobby: He tried to make me grab him. But first he’d try to grab me and start touching me. ...

Laurie: Right. But when he gave you the money, what did he want for that? He wanted you to grab him or he wanted to do you?

Bobby: He wanted to do me. He wanted me to touch him. He tried to make me touch him a couple of times. He’d grab my hand and then I’d pull away. Then he’d put me in your bed and then, you know, put me down. And I’d try to go away. Then he put his arm on top of my chest. He goes, If you want this money, you’ll stay right here. I’d try to leave and he’d grab me real hard. You know what he does — I told you about this before, right? He’d grab you if you tried to walk away and he’d say, I’ll pull it off or something like that.

Laurie: Right, right.

Bobby: I told you that before.

Laurie: But you never had any oral sex with him?

Bobby: No. I think he’d want to.

Laurie: Of course, he would. Why wouldn’t he?

Bobby: I don't know. (laughs)

Laurie: So then he gives you all this money. Now you’re not willing to ...

Bobby: This is three days in a row. And then I never came around again, I was so, like, distraught. I was like oh my gosh. I don’t know. It was a weird situation. Now I look back, there’s no way I could give him the money back after what I went through. Maybe that’s wrong, I don’t know.

Laurie: See, the money isn’t the issue here. He lured you with the money. See, he knew full well what he was doing.

...

Laurie: ... In fact the other day, as a matter of fact it’s funny that you mentioned it, ... we sold Scott Ave.

Bobby: You got rid of it?

Laurie: Yeah, Scott Ave. is gone so he couldn’t even drag you back there. Now, Wilson Street is sold sold.

Bobby: You don’t have the fraternity.

Laurie: Yeah, he has the fraternity. He doesn’t go up there anymore, hardly at all. The fraternity moved, so that wasn’t. .. Really, there’s no place for him to run and drag people ...

Bobby: Laurie, it doesn’t matter. He would do it downstairs while you were upstairs cooking sometimes.

Laurie: Uh-huh.

Bobby: He’d be like at Manley, he’d shut the door. The secretaries must ... I’d come out all red.

Laurie: When (the Fine’s son) was little and you lived there, he’d say, ‘You better put (their son) to bed.’ I’d say, ‘He is in bed.’ ‘Well, you better go check him.’ And I’d go up to check him. I’d come down. He’d be out of the living room in the basement. He used to think of ways to get me out of the room. Like, I’m not an idiot, Bernie.

The Fines' Home - Scene of the Crimes?

Bobby: Exactly. When I stayed there in your basement, he’d come down there every night. I’m like, what the heck, what’s Laurie thinking?

Laurie: What did I think? ... And then he’d come down to where you were every night. And he’d say to me, ‘Go check (their son).’ Or... Go lay with him. Go upstairs.’ Anything to get me out of the room. And I knew. I told you when I was walking down the stairs at night, I’d say to myself, Guaranteed he’s not in there. When I’d look in, his papers would be spread out all over and he’d be gone. Right down the basement, door closed.

Bobby: He did that every night.

Laurie: You know what, go to a place where there’s gay boys. Find yourself a gay boy. ... Get your rocks off, and have it be over with. He needs that male companionship that I can’t give him. ...

Bobby: You know how he’d always try to get me in the shower. You knew about that, right?

Laurie: Yeah. I still have a graphic memory of that, thank you.

Bobby: Whenever you weren’t there ...(unintelligible)

Laurie: He’d always say, ‘Bobby and I are going in the Jacuzzi.’ And I’d go to the bathroom and I’d try to come in. The door’d be locked. I’d check: ‘What's going on?’ ‘Nothing.’ I said, ‘Unlock the door.’ ‘No, we’re in our underwear.’

Bobby: So, it’s not me, it’s him.

Laurie: I understand that. You don’t have to explain to me.

Bobby: I’m trying to convince myself.

Laurie: Convince yourself. You did nothing wrong. You did nothing wrong, and you were a child, and he took advantage of that. And with Bernie there’s a price tag on everything. If he does for you, it’s like he records it in a book and you better do it for him.

Tape of Laurie Fine's Discussion With Bobby Davis About Syracuse's Bernie Fine

2011-11-30T15:06:00.006-05:00

Bobby Davis - With Mr. and Mrs. Fine?

Click here to hear relevant parts of the phone call between Bobby Davis and Laurie Fine, wife of accused molester and former Syracuse assistant head coach Bernie Fine.

Laurie: You Should Have Done Something

Click here to read a transcript of the phone call.

Click Here to read our comprehensive report on the Syracuse scandal.

Will Denial That Ball Boys Traveled With Syracuse Basketball Team Cost Jim Boeheim His Job?

2011-11-30T12:38:00.018-05:00

Overview of Syracuse Basketball Scandal

A disturbing story with plot lines potentially similar to the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky investigation just became more compelling.

Bernie Fine - Pedophile?

Bernie Fine, a long-time assistant basketball coach at Syracuse University, and close friend of head coach Jim Boeheim, was recently fired in the wake of recent allegations by at least one former Syracuse ball boy, Bobby Davis, that he had molested them over a period of years. Two other men have come forward with similar allegations, although neither worked as Syracuse ball boys.

Bobby Davis Had History of Making Complaints Against Fine

Bobby Davis - Victim?

This is a particularly strange story for a number of reasons. One, Davis has been making these allegations for years, going back as far as 2002, but was never taken seriously until ESPN recently investigated the story after Davis resurfaced following the emergence of the PSU scandal. This has led some to conclude (as Jim Boeheim did initially - he has since changed his tune) that Davis is simply crying wolf again, in a search for money. Others have concluded that this scandal is the product of an overzealous and misplaced investigation by ESPN.

Yet....

Laurie Fine All But Admits Bernie Fine a Pedophile in Taped Phone Call With Bobby Davis

Laurie Fine: Strange

Davis taped a call with Fine's wife years ago, and she basically does everything but call her husband a pedophile. The tape is one of the strangest things I have ever heard; Mrs. Fine basically acknowledges Fine is a pedophile, describing him as at once demented and feeling he is "above the law." She also makes clear that she knew exactly what was going on, making her complicit in her husband's alleged crimes. Very odd.

This tape was provided by Davis to ESPN and a Syracuse newspaper 8 years ago. It is unclear what they did with it.

Click Here to hear Laurie Fine's conversation with Bobby Davis.

Click Here for a full written transcript of the conversation between Laurie Fine and Bobby Davis.

Oh, and did I mention that Davis claims that he slept with Mrs. Fine, and that when he told Bernie Fine about the liaison, he simply shrugged his shoulders as if to say, "who cares" ?

Evidence Seems Clear Davis Traveled With Syracuse While a Ball Boy

Then, we have the traveling ball boy issue.

The 'Cuse - Not Unlike PSU?

Early reports, which included statements from Davis's contemporaries, indicated that Davis (and Davis alone among ball boys) had frequently traveled with Syracuse to away games, a practice that is apparently unheard of in college basketball. The clear implication of this anomaly was that Jim Boeheim should have known that something fishy was going on given the novelty of this practice.

Based upon the way in which these early stories were reported, there seemed to be no debate about whether or not Davis traveled with the team - only about the implications of such practice where Jim Boeheim was concerned. Surely, Boeheim heard that Davis's claims that he traveled with he team were corroborated by his contemporaries...

Or maybe not.

Jim Boeheim Denies Ball Boys Ever Traveled With Syracuse Basketball Team

Boeheim: Will Ball Boy Denial Cost His Job?

Yesterday Boeheim categorically denied that ball boys ever traveled with the team. Although he did not specifically reference Davis, his statement appeared unequivocal, and thus appears to have included Davis within its ambit. In making this statement, Jim Boeheim may have put his job on the line. If, in fact, it is proved that Davis traveled with the team as a ball boy, Boeheim will be branded a liar, and clearly would be viewed in some circles as therefore complicit in Fine's alleged misdeeds (i.e. why lie about Davis traveling with team unless you have something to hide?).

Why Did Jim Boeheim Deny Ball Boys Traveled With Syracuse Basketball Team?

Here is what I think. Boeheim has been so firmly entrenched at Syracuse for so long that he believes he is untouchable. He apparently believed, though, that his stewardship could be jeopardized if it was determined that Davis traveled with the team. Why, I don't know - but I have a guess: he realized that this practice is so unheard of that its existence would call into question why he was not suspicious or, in a worst scenario, that he was suspicious and did nothing. So, despite the clear evidence provided by Davis and his fellow ball boys, despite knowing that if, indeed, Davis could prove he traveled with the team (plane tickets, hotel reservations, pictures, testimony from players and staff, etc.), he has taken the position that Davis did not travel with the team.

In doing so, he has in my mind cast suspicion upon himself that did not exist, for me, until today.

We will keep an eye on this story.

Poll Shows 50% Believe Paterno Forced Sandusky to Resign Following 1998 Resignation

2011-11-30T12:05:00.006-05:00

Poll Shows 90% Believe Sandusky's Retirement Related to 1998 Investigation

We recently posted a poll in which we asked the following question:

Based upon what you know so far, do you believe Jerry Sandusky resigned in 1999 in lieu of being fired by PSU due to 1998 investigation?

Here are the poll results:

Yes, Paterno found out about it and made him resign: 14 (50%)

Yes, PSU (but not Paterno) found out about it and made him resign: 11 (40%)

No, he truly decided to retire so he could devote more time to the Second Mile Charity: 3 (10%)

A small sampling, to be sure, but nevertheless interesting....

Sandusky: 90% Believe Forced to Resign

Paterno: 50% Believe He Forced Sandusky Out

Thanks to all who voted.

50 Best Careers of 2011

2011-11-29T08:41:00.010-05:00

U.S. News and World Report has published its tally of the 50 Best Careers in 2011.

Here is the list. If you go to the USNWR article, you can click on any of the careers listed below and obtain comprehensive information that will help you map out your career path. Great stuff!

[Interested in other "Best Of" Surveys? Click Here for our comprehensive collection.]

Business Jobs:

• Accountant

• Actuary

• Financial adviser

• Financial analyst

• Logistician

• Meeting planner

• Public relations specialist

• Sales manager

• Training specialist

Creative and Service Jobs:

• Commercial pilot

• Curator

• Film and video editor

• Gaming manager

• Heating, air conditioning and refrigeration technician

• Interpreter/Translator

• Multimedia artist

• Technical writer

Healthcare Jobs:

• Athletic trainer

• Dental hygienist

• Lab technician

• Massage therapist

• Occupational therapist

• Optometrist

• Physician assistant

• Physical therapist

• Physical therapist assistant

• Radiologic technologist

• Registered nurse

• School psychologist

• Veterinarian

Social Service Jobs:

• Clergy

• Court reporter

• Education administrator

• Emergency management specialist

• Firefighter

• Marriage and family therapist

• Mediator

• Medical and public health social worker

• Special-education teacher

• Urban planner

Technology Jobs:

• Biomedical engineer

• Civil engineer

• Computer software engineer

• Computer support specialist

• Computer systems analyst

• Environmental engineering technician

• Environmental science technician

• Hydrologist

• Meteorologist

• Network architect

Triponey E-Mail Puts Paterno in Bad Light

2011-11-22T17:08:00.002-05:00

Say it ain't so, Joe

Paterno Encouraged PSU to Hide Player Infractions From Public?

Just what Joe Paterno didn't need. Vicky Triponey, a former PSU official who resigned in 2007, recently released (to the Wall Street Journal, no less) a 2005 e-mail she apparently had held on to for 6 years. In it, she complains to then-PSU President Graham Spanier that Coach Paterno was insistent that reports of players' crimes and misdemeanors should not be made public.

Click Here for text of Triponey e-mail, and story.

Ok, this isn't terribly surprising but, yet, I truly am starting to feel sorry for Joe Paterno, whose clay feet are slowly, surely, being revealed to all...

Text of 2005 E-Mail from Vicky Triponey Concerning Joe Paterno and Discipline of Penn State Football Players

2011-11-22T13:53:00.016-05:00

I'll Handle This, Vicky

Here are the pertinent portions of the 2005 e-mail from former PSU official Vicky Triponey to then President Graham Spanier, indicating her displeasure (note the "NOTs") at Coach Paterrno's approach to player discipline. The e-mail contains prophetic references, at least where PSU is concerned (and Coach Paterno?), to "moral and legal obligation(s)":

"[Coach Paterno] is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players ... and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern ... and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard."

"Coach Paterno would rather we NOT inform the public when a football player is found responsible for committing a serious violation of the law and/or our student code, despite any moral or legal obligation to do so."

Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").

Accurate?

Does the e-mail suggest to you that Penn State's "lily white" image may have more to do with deception than reality?

More accurate?

Click Here for full story from SI.com.

Former Penn State Official Claims Paterno Encouraged School to Hide Reports of Serious Player Misconduct.

2011-11-22T13:49:00.002-05:00

Click Here for full report.

Insider Report: Joe Paterno Fought Penn State's Attempts to Discipline Players

2011-11-22T13:21:00.013-05:00

Did Joe Paterno Oppose Penn State's Efforts to Discipline Football Players?

Click Here for interesting report from ESPN that, to me, is at once unsurprising and damning. It details a recent Wall Street Journal piece based in large part upon discussions with former PSU student disciplinarian Vicky Triponey, who also released a 2005 e-mail she had written to then-PSU President Granham Spanier.

Here is an excerpt from the 2005 e-mail:

I'll Handle This, Vicky

Ms. Triponey, who resigned from PSU in 2007, held that e-mail for 6 years. I am reminded of the Italian proverb, La vendetta è un piatto che si serve freddo ("Revenge is a dish best served cold").

Sandusky to Face New Charges, Bail to be Revoked?

2011-11-22T13:18:00.001-05:00

Click Here to jump to excellent ESPN story on the still developing case against Jerry Sandusky.

Ten Hardest Jobs to Fill

2011-11-22T12:42:00.006-05:00

What Jobs Are Companies Having a Hard Time Filling?

A Popular Office, but Hard to Fill Position

The attached Article from Monster.com provides some insight on the jobs that companies are allegedly having a hard time time filling. The article splits the jobs on a white collar and blue collar basis.

Check it out, and perhaps you can gain some insight on career or job opportunities.

Times are tough, so I thought I'd spice this up with a little humor. Laughter, sometimes the very best medecine...

Bets of luck!

Best and Worst Jobs, Colleges and More

Avoid this Company

Interested in our collection of surveys/articles concerning best and worst jobs in various industries, best and worst college and graduate degrees, best and worst companies to work for, etc.? Click Here.

Ranking the Most Common EEOC Discrimination Claims in 2011

2011-11-22T11:30:00.006-05:00

What Are the Statistics for EEOC Charges in 2011?

The attached Chart from EEOC sets forth statistics for Job Discrimination Charges filed with EEOC during the 2011 fiscal year (which ended September 30, 2011). As discussed in an earlier Post, the 99,922 Charges filed in 2011 constitute the most ever filed during EEOC's 46-year existence.

An examination of this historical date discloses some interesting trends.

Age Discrimination Claims on the Rise in America

The Baby Boomers are now ranging in age from 47-65, and there are a lot of them. As the attached article discusses, older workers feel more and more they are being targeted for termination, and the statistics bear that out.

For example, in 1997, there were 15,785 Age Discrimination Charges filed with EEOC. In 2010, that number was 23,264, which equated to 23% of all Charges filed with EEOC..

Race Discrimination Claims Remain the Most Common Charges Filed with EEOC

Race Charges were the most common claims filed in 2011 (36%), followed by Sex (29%), Disability (25%) and then Age (23%). National Origin, Religion and Equal Pay Act claims all registered less than 5% of all Charges filed with EEOC in 2011.

Retaliation Claims Also on Rise

A Retaliation claim under arises when an employer demotes, fails to promote, suspends or fires and employee who has made a claim of discrimination/hostile work environment based upon age, race, sex, national origin, religion or disability (or when a complaint of sexual harassment is made). In 1997, roughly 35,000 Retaliation claims were filed. In 2011, that number was roughly 67,000.

To me, this suggests that more people are reporting claims of discrimination/hostile work environment to management.

Interested in an overview of the definition of discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, etc.? Click Here to jump to our quick answers to your most common FAQs.

EEOC Reports Discrimination Claims at an All-Time High

2011-11-22T11:09:00.005-05:00

HuffPost recently examined current statistics from EEOC, which indicate that more Job Discrimination Complaints were filed during fiscal year 2011 (which ended 9/30/11) than in any previous year. Nearly 100,000 charges were filed, the most in the agency's 46-year existence.

Click Here to see the EEOC statistics.

Click Here to read our analysis of the EEOC Charge Statistics for 2011.

Click Here to read our answers to the most common FAQs concerning employment law.

McQueary and Police in Fight to Death

2011-11-18T13:46:00.007-05:00

In 2010, Mike McQueary Wrote a Handwritten Statement About the 2002 Shower Incident

Yesterday, Sara Ganim of the Patriot-News, who has been lauded by her stellar coverage of the PSU scandal, wrote an article that in part stated the following:

The Patriot-News viewed the handwritten witness statement that McQueary gave after he was found by agents with the state attorney general’s office in 2010. The Patriot-News verified it through a source close to the investigation.

His statement is two pages long, and it makes no mention of McQueary making a statement to police. It says nothing about stopping the assault. It is very similar to the account summarized in the 23-page grand jury presentment.

McQueary wrote that he hastily left the locker room after allegedly seeing a boy about 10 years old being sodomized by Sandusky. Sandusky and the boy saw him, he wrote, but he doesn’t think he would recognize the boy today.

The whole thing lasted about a minute, he wrote.

Neither campus nor borough police received reports from McQueary about an alleged sexual assault in 2002, the departments said Wednesday.

State College Police Chief Tom King said McQueary didn’t make a report to his department. Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said campus police also didn’t have any record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.

Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Consistent With Grand Jury Indictment

These statements are consistent with the summary of McQueary's testimony before the Grand Jury contained in its Indictment. The Indictment explicitly states that a subpoena issued to the police during the investigation seeking any and all records relating to the 2002 shower episode resulted in the production of no records.

Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Inconsistent With McQueary's Recent E-Mail

Mike - STOP TALKING AND WRITING

McQueary's recent e-mail, the full text of which may be found Here, states that he "had discussions" with the police about the 2002 shower incident. Yesterday, the police denied having ever received a report from McQueary in 2002 (which, in fairness to McQueary, does not squarely address his claim that he had discussions with the police about the 2002 incident). Now, the handwritten statement seems to tip the credibility scales in favor of the police, and against Mike McQueary.

So, what is going on here?

Why Would Mike McQueary Lie?

Reputation restoration.

Sandusky: Praying That McQueary Keeps Talking

Yet, doing so in this fashion is extremely risky and dangerous, particularly given the seriousness of the incidents at issue, and the fact that the eyes of the World (friends of mine in Italy and Great Britain said the PSU scandal was front page news all of last week) are upon you. Here is why.

McQueary has pitted himself against the police in a do or die struggle that, at least from the police department's perspective, could have millions of dollars of ramifications.

Why?

PSU Police: Out To Prove McQueary Lying

If the police were in March/April 2002 (the shower incident took place on a Friday night at around 9:30 p.m. in March 2002) made aware of the explicit rape allegations recounted by McQueary to the Grand Jury, and did nothing, than any Sandusky victims abused subsequent to that time will have a strong argument that the police are civilly liable to them for damages. Big damages.

If McQueary is proved to be lying about talking to the police, what do you think that will do to McQueary's credibility in front of a jury. Sandusky's lawyer is licking his chops.

And, so, McQueary - star witness for the prosecution - has now created a prime time battle for credibility between he and the prosecution. This can only help the defense, whether McQueary or the police are lying, but it particularly helps the defense if McQueary is lying - which right now appears to be the case.

McQueary's e-mail is the latest in a series of stupefying gaffes by the characters in this drama. Here are some of the most startling such gaffes:

Spanier: Long Distance Support...

1. PSU President Graham Spanier pledges "unconditional support" to two high ranking PSU officials indicted for perjury and failure to report sex crimes against children. He is fired days later.

What Did Joe Know?

2. Joe Paterno claims he would have done more if he had known that the boy was being sodomized, suggesting that he did "what he was supposed to" by reporting to his superiors what he understood to be mere sexual horseplay by a naked Jerry Sandusky and a 10 year-old boy in the PSU showers, and never following up with anyone about the incident ever again. He is fired days later.

Ignoring Assault Not Right Thing, Dad

3. John McQueary, Mike's father, said Mike did what he was supposed to in 2002, thereby blessing his son's decision to high-tail it out of the locker room after he witnessed the rape without intervening to stop it. In making his statement, father McQueary also blessed his own actions, which consisted of encouraging his son to flee after receiving a call from him moments after he had witnessed the assault.

Scott - We're Skeptical

4. Scott Paterno, JoePa's lawyer son, said that Joe did not know about the intense, prolonged 1998 investigation by PSU Police into another shower molestation charge against Sandusky.

5. Scott also claims that Sandusky's sudden and surprising resignation had nothing to do with the 1998 investigation. He has since gone radio silent.

Dangerous E-Mails Ahead

6. Mike McQueary sends e-mail (which appeared to be intended for leak) saying he stopped assault and that he spoke to police about 2002 incident, statements contradicted by Grand Jury Indictment, police and McQueary's own handwritten statement issued the prior year. Now he is on administrative leave, firing imminent.

Careful, Joe

7. Sandusky's attorney Joe Amendola tells media he has found the 10 year-old boy in the shower, and the boy denies he was raped. WOW. If I had such a star witness (whose identity is unknown to all except Sandusky), I think I would keep under wraps. And, hoo boy, I would not say or even suggest that unless I knew for sure it was in the bag. We'll see.

Sad, sad situation.

Click Here to read why McQueary's Risky e-mail gambit may trip him up - big time.

McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Provided Attorney General Makes No Mention of Stopping Assault

2011-11-18T12:12:00.015-05:00

The Patriot-News viewed the handwritten witness statement that McQueary gave after he was found by agents with the state attorney general’s office in 2010. The Patriot-News verified it through a source close to the investigation.

His statement is two pages long, and it makes no mention of McQueary making a statement to police. It says nothing about stopping the assault. It is very similar to the account summarized in the 23-page grand jury presentment.

McQueary wrote that he hastily left the locker room after allegedly seeing a boy about 10 years old being sodomized by Sandusky. Sandusky and the boy saw him, he wrote, but he doesn’t think he would recognize the boy today.

The whole thing lasted about a minute, he wrote.

Neither campus nor borough police received reports from McQueary about an alleged sexual assault in 2002, the departments said Wednesday.

State College Police Chief Tom King said McQueary didn’t make a report to his department. Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said campus police also didn’t have any record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary.

Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Consistent With Grand Jury Indictment

Like Watching a Car Crash

These statements are consistent with the summary of McQueary's testimony before the Grand Jury contained in its Indictment. There, its is said that, upon making eye contact with Jerry Sandusly and a boy approximately 10 years-old who McQueary asserts was being sodomized in a shower, McQueary "left immediately, distraught."

No mention of stopping the incident is stated or suggested in the Indictment, or in McQueary's 2010 handwritten statement.

Mike McQueary's 2010 Handwritten Statement Inconsistent With McQueary's Recent E-Mail

McQueary's recent e-mail, the full text of which may be found Here, states that he "had discussions" with the police about the 2002 shower incident.

So, what is going on here?

Why Would Mike McQueary Lie?

One theory: McQueary knows that Sandusky is not going to admit he was raping the boy, who so far has not been identified and who so far has apparently not come forward. He figures that the boy is not going to come forward. So, he can engage in some reputation restoration by claiming he stopped the assault, without risk that he will ever be contradicted.

Bad approach, Mike, for numerous reasons.

One, in saying what you said, you should have known that you were implicitly contradicting the Grand Jury; given that the Pennsylvania Attorney General is in charge of the case, that's akin to tugging on Superman's cape.

Two, by saying what you said, you cast the entire Indictment into doubt. Where a star witness, the most important witness for the prosecution, does that, it increases the likelihood that the alleged perpetrator will gain an acquittal.

Three, what happens if the victim comes forward, and disagrees with your account. In addition to the major hit to your reputation, such would be devastating to your credibility before a jury at trial (see point two, above).

Thanks to McQueary, Off Media Radar - For now

Four, even if the victim does not come forward, a guilty plea from Sandusky may result in him being required, through a process called allocution, to admit in detail his crimes in open court. Such allocution will surely include admission and detail concerning the 2002 shower incident.

Five, and finally, you should have known that your e-mail, in addition to being contradicted by the Indictment, was contradicted by your own written statement. Not good, Mike.

As serious as the entire scandal is, the post-Indictment actions of the players are stupefying. Here are some of the most startling.

Spanier: Now Supporting From a Distance

1. PSU President Graham Spanier pledges "unconditional support" to two high ranking PSU officials indicted for perjury and failure to report sex crimes against children. He is fired days later.

What Did You Know, Joe?

The Right Thing, Dad?

Seriously, Scott?

4. Scott Paterno, JoePa's lawyer son, said that Joe did not know about the intense, prolonged 1998 investigation by PSU Police into another shower molestation charge against Sandusky.

5. Scott also claims that Sandusky's sudden and surprising resignation had nothing to do with the 1998 investigation. He has since gone radio silent.

E-Mail Can Be Hazardous

Watch What You Say, Joe

Full Text of Mike McQueary E-Mail

2011-11-17T11:40:00.006-05:00

What Did the Email That Mike McQueary Sent Last Week Say?

Mike, I Would Stop E-Mailing and Speaking

According to ESPN, here it is:

... you are the first person I have told this ... and I don't know you extremely well ... and I have been told bye officials to not say anything ...

I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me.

Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough impacting quick decisions.

This is off record ... again ... I have not and will not say anything to anyone else.

As we posted earlier today, PSU Police are denying that Mike McQueary ever made a report to them about the 2002 shower incident.

Yes...But Did You Speak with Him?

Note, though, that McQueary never said he filed a report, only that he spoke to the police. This story is far from over....

Interested in our overview of the PSU Scandal? Click Here.

PSU Police Deny McQueary Made Report About 2002 Incident - But That's Not the Whole Story

2011-11-17T10:49:00.013-05:00

Penn State Police Deny McQueary Filed Report With Them

Yesterday, the Penn State University Police denied that Mike McQueary had ever filed a report with them concerning the 2002 shower incident involving Jerry Sandusky and an unidentified boy, witnessed by McQueary.

This is an unsurprising knee jerk reaction by PSU Police, but it really doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. We knew from the Indictment that the Grand Jury had subpoenaed records from the PSU Police in connection with its investigation, and that no records were produced relating to this particular incident.

So, basically, reading between the lines, the police simply made a statement based upon their knowledge that no such incident report was produced (and never existed?).

PSU Police: Tell Us Something We Don't Know

But, I am reasonably certain, the police did not yesterday speak with every one who worked for them in 1992 prior to issuing their statement. Rather, this statement should be: "We have no police report relating the the 2002 incident." Tell us something we don't already know!

Also, the statement by PSU Police is not directly responsive to McQueary's claim that he "spoke with" the police about the incident. He never claimed that he filed a report. He said he spoke with them. This story is sure to grow, because there is a lot at stake.

What Exactly Did Mike McQueary's E-Mail Say?

Here is the full text of the McQueary e-mail, at least according to ESPN (apparently nothing is omitted, I guess McQueary likes ellipses):

... you are the first person I have told this ... and I don't know you extremely well ... and I have been told bye officials to not say anything ...I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me. Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough impacting quick decisions.
This is off record ... again ... I have not and will not say anything to anyone else.

If I Were You, Mike, I's Stopped Talking...

By issuing the e-mail to someone he "doesn't know extremely well," and making claims that are contradicted by the Grand Jury Indictment and now the PSU Police, Mike McQueary has placed himself in potentially very hot water.

Last evening, the NY Times issued an excellent article discussing how it was that investigators tracked down Mike McQueary in the first place. Interestingly, the investigators knew nothing about the 2002 incident until they found an anonymous post in late 2010 that suggested that a PSU coach had witnessed a disturbing act by Sandusky in the past. The investigators ultimately concluded that McQueary had to be the coach in question. When they tracked him down, he spoke in depth about the incident, apparently relieved that he could unburden himself.

The article also provides a back story behind the investigation that is interesting. Click Here to read the NY Times article.

Interested in our overview of the PSU Scandal? Click Here.

Did Penn State Police Destroy Records of 2002 Investigation of Sandusky?

2011-11-16T12:28:00.004-05:00

If Mike McQueary is to be believed, they may have....

Focus Will Turn Here Soon

Click Here for full report.

Click Here for the full text of the Mike McQueary E-Mail.

Interested in our overview of the PSU Scandal? Click Here.

If Mike McQueary Told Grand Jury He Stopped Rape, Then Indictment is Grossly Unfair. If not...

2011-11-16T10:32:00.013-05:00

Mike McQueary Claims He Stopped Rape and Spoke With Police About 2002 Shower Incident at Penn State

On November 15, an e-mail from McQueary was published wherein he stated that he stopped the rape before he left the building. Subsequent news reports suggest that McQueary has also stated that he talked to the police about the incident.

Were PSU Police Told of 2002 Incident?

If these things are true, 2 thoughts come to mind: 1) the Grand Jury Indictment should have stated that McQueary stopped the incident before departing the building. Instead, it states that after making eye contact with the victim and Sandusky, McQueary "left immediately, distraught." and, 2) either McQueary is lying or the police have some serious questions to answer.

Click Here for the full text of the Mike McQueary E-Mail.

Indictment Unfair to McQueary if He Stopped Rape

The portions of the Grand Jury Indictment suggesting that McQueary left immediately after seeing the incident led to the vilification of Mike McQueary around the World on the grounds that he left and allowed the rape to continue.

What Didn't the GJ Tell Us?

I am sure that McQueary was asked many, many questions by the Grand Jury about exactly what transpired on that night in March 2002 when he alleges that he witnessed Sandusky anally raping a boy in a PSU shower.

Is He Lying, or is Something Else Going On?

I am equally sure that McQueary answered those questions with the most detail he could muster. Surely, he would have told the Grand Jury that the rape stopped before he left the building.

NOTE: Even so, McQueary's e-mail explanation leaves something to be desired. What does "stopped" mean? Did Sandusky and the boy get dressed and leave together before McQueary departed?

If he told the Grand Jury that the rape stopped before he left the building, that should have been in the Indictment. Shame on the Grand Jury for omitting such facts if they were aware of same. Such an indictment would have been read and revised many times before it was published. The description of McQueary's actions that night as stated in the Indictment would plainly have left anyone to conclude that his conduct, as described, would be condemned.

If he did not tell the Grand Jury that the rape stopped before he left, then something is amiss. That is not the type of detail one leaves out when testifying under oath in such a serious matter.

Were Police Sloppy or is McQueary Lying About Speaking With Them About 2002 Shower Incident?

The Indictment makes clear that the Grand Jury found that neither McQueary nor anyone else at PSU spoke to the police about the 2002 incident. It states further that police records were subpoenaed, and no report or information concerning the 2002 incident was produced.

Is McQueary lying, or did the police not keep records of such discussion? Click Here to read our analysis on that potentially explosive and case-turning issue.

For the truly nefarious-minded, is it possible the police, when subpoenaed by the Grand Jury, realized they had a problem and buried the report? It's happened before, I suppose...

Interested in our overview of the PSU Scandal? Click Here.

Did McQueary Speak With Police About 2002 Shower Incident? Did Police Fail to Investigate the 2002 Shower Incident at Penn State?

2011-11-16T10:03:00.038-05:00

Penn State's Mike McQueary Claims He Stopped Rape and Later Spoke to Police and Child Protection

On November 15, portions of a recent e-mail from McQueary was published wherein he stated that he stopped the rape before he left the building. Subsequent news reports suggest that, in his e-mail, McQueary also stated that he talked to the police about the incident.

NOTE: Later, the full e-mail was released and it does include both statements.

Click Here for full text of McQueary E-Mail

If what McQueary says is true, two thoughts come to mind: 1) if McQueary said that to the Grand Jury, its Indictment should have said so. Instead, it states that after making eye contact with the victim and Sandusky, McQueary "left immediately, distraught." and, 2) the police have some serious questions to answer.

If Mike McQueary Proves His Story, Then the Police Are Facing Massive Lawsuit

There is no debate that in 1998, the police conducted an extensive investigation following a report concerning Jerry Sandusky's alleged sexually inappropriate dalliances with a young boy. Ultimately, the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case.

Why Are There No Records of McQueary's Alleged Conversation?

Up until yesterday, there has been no suggestion that the police were ever informed about the March 2002 shower incident witnessed by Mike McQueary. The Indictment certainly contradicts such a claim. Indeed, based upon the Indictment, McQueary, and others, have been almost universally condemned for, among other things, failing to report this incident to the police. Implicit in that condemnation is the belief that, given the seriousness of what McQueary witnessed, and the 1998 investigation, a mere report to the police would have resulted in the arrest of Sandusky, and the end of his vicious pattern of alleged sexual abuse.

Is There More Here Than Meets the Eye?

The Indictment makes clear that the Grand Jury found that neither McQueary nor anyone else at PSU spoke to the police about the 2002 incident. It states further that police records were subpoenaed, and no report or information concerning the 2002 incident was produced.

NOTE: The Indictment indicates that numerous PSU officials (Schultz, Curley and Spanier) testified that they informed the child protection agency about the incident. The Indictment indicates that Department of Welfare records were subpoenaed, and no report or information about the 2002 incident was produced. There will surely be more on this going forward. Query: If the Grand Jury believed that the PSU officials were lying when they claimed they spoke with child protection officials about the 2002 incident (an assumption that seems to naturally arise given the absence of any records of such reports), then why weren't they indicted for that perjurious testimony? Cound it be that the Grand Jury was skeptical of the "no records" response from the Department of Welfare? Certainly an issue that bears watching...

McQueary - Lying, Misremembering? Or is Something Else Going on?

Now, McQueary has said he did speak to the police about the 2002 incident. If the police were in fact notified of the 2002 incident, this incredible drama may take a turn in a whole new direction - one that is sure to include a massive lawsuit against the police by all those who suffered abuse subsequent to March 2002.

What if McQueary Is Not Telling the Truth?

Having listened to McQueary, and to some of his acquaintances, he seems like a stand-up guy. You can be sure, though, that he just painted a bulls' eye on his back (and chest, head...) where local police are involved. The police will be out to prove that McQueary is lying about speaking with them about this incident. If, indeed, McQueary is not telling the truth about speaking with the police, well, this whole situation will explode beyond nearly anything we have ever seen in legal circles. It is interesting, too, that this e-mail appears to have been "written to leak," raising an interesting question. Were the lawyers McQueary met with last week behind the e-mail? Or is McQueary a "lawyer's nightmare," a client that takes critical action without first seeking legal advice.

Joe Amendola - Might Want to Watch Litigating in Press, Joe

For instance, Sandusky's lawyer, Joe Amendola, is reportedly saying that he believes he found the heretofore unidentified boy in the shower, and that the boy is clear in stating that he was not raped that night. Since there are only 2 people who know for sure the identity of the boy in question, Sandusky being one, one must assume that Sandusky's lawyer spoke to the right person (and if was willing to speak to the lawyer for his alleged perpetrator, the alleged victim is either highly confused/distraught or wasn't a rape victim). Sandusky (incredibly) went on TV the other night and told Bob Costas that he and the boy were merely playing around in the shower that night.

Mere Naked Horseplay in Shower With 10 year-old?

Can you imagine if McQueary didn't talk to the police as he claims, and if indeed the boy in the shower surfaces and says he was not anally raped that night?

Another possible problem for McQueary is now on the horizon, to wit: McQueary's claim is sure to stir ire against the police, and they may pursue McQueary civilly (for libel) if his e-mail is false.

Oh boy, is all I can say.

Interested in our overview of the PSU Scandal? Click Here.

McQueary - Is he Lying, Misremembering? Or Is Something Else Going On?

Of Villains and Heroes - Which Ones Typify Humanity?

2011-11-15T14:23:00.030-05:00

Villains

Jerry Sandusky

Lately, I think first of villains.

Penn State officials covered for and covered up (allegedly) horrible sex crimes by former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

Ciaverella and Conhan - Uncommon Thieves

Two judges in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania accepted bribes and kickbacks from the owner of several youth detention centers in exchange for sending hundreds of kids guilty (possibly) of petty crimes to hard-core detention centers. Parents sat speechless and helpless as anticipated "slap on the wrist" hearings culminated with their children being unceremoniously hauled out of court in handcuffs, not to see their home again for months or years.

Vatican Counsel - Shame On You

The Catholic Church made a practice of protecting known child abuser priests over a period of decades (or is it hundreds of years?), often transferring priests who they knew were pedophiles to unsuspecting parishes just as increasingly suspicious parishioners began to ask tough questions.

Richard Nixon

The President of the United States covered up the role of his administration in the participation of a felony burglary of Watergate Hotel, cultivating an atmosphere of fear and retribution within the government, and ultimately destroying evidence before resigning in the face of impeachment proceedings.

Kitty Genovese

Kitty Genovese is stabbed to death in a Boston alley for a half-hour in 1964, her repeated screams and pleas for help heard by 38 neighbors, none of whom call the police. Later, a neighbor explained his inaction by saying he "didn't want to get involved."

A 2 year-old Chinese girl is run over twice on a crowded street, and lays immobile, bleeding and unconscious in the street while 18 passersby do nothing to aid her (Caution: graphic imanges). Eventually, a street cleaner stops to render her aid, but it is too late. She dies soon after. China is universally condemned for lacking humanity.

Investment banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies on Wall Street banded together to pocket billions of dollars, and hundreds of millions of executive bonuses, knowing that their actions would likely lead (and did lead) to the collapse of the American (and World) economy. Not one of the perpetrators has been arrested, and at least one (Ben Bernanke) sits in President Obama's Cabinet.

No Caption Required

Al Queda, which systematically carried out the most horrifying terrorist attack of all time on 9/11, with the stated goal of planting the seeds for the destruction of you, me and every American.

The list goes on and on. We humans are certainly imperfect. Presidents, legendary football coaches, God's trusted emissaries, Chinese civilians or Boston neighbors - none of us are per se immune.

Heroes

Then, I think of heroes.

Joe Delaney - a True Hero

Joe Delaney, age 24, a star running back for the Kansas City Chiefs who, in the prime of his life, dives into a swimming hole in an attempt to save 3 drowing boys he did not know. He saved one. Delaney, who had never learned to swim, drowned in the process. He stands in contrast to Mike McQueary, the the 28 year-old PSU grad assistant who, a Grand Jury found, "left immediately, distraught" upon seeing a rape being committed by Jerry Sandusky on an 10 year-old boy in 2002.

True Heroes

The NYC firemen who raced to save civilians trapped in the World Trade Centers on 9/11, knowing that, with every step they took, their lives were imperiled.

Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima

The soldiers that stormed Iwo Jima, against terrifying odds and amidst horrifying casualties of war.

Mother Theresa. Martin Luther King. Nelson Mandela. Oskar Schindler.

Mother Therese- A Lifetime of Heroism

We are good, we are bad, we are human.