forums

Mel Tucker is a Corch [Suspended after investigation...now fired]

KANE said:
Talking about that contract. They can fire him "with cause", for anything that brings shame to MSU. That can be on campus during regular work hours, or doing dumb **** off campus. It can be for having a consensual affair..... especially if the person you're having said affair with, is a subordinate of yours.
Click to expand...
All those semantics are the reason I don’t envy lawyers. This all looks like he said, she said. I'm sure they will get to the bottom of this by 2025.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
cway313 said:
She was contracted for MSU once in April she wasn't an employee during the alleged incident.
Click to expand...
thought i read that part of reason MSU thinks they have jurisdicktion is that tucker cancelled her followup meeting at MSU after the herky jerky phone call
 
flips said:
thought i read that part of reason MSU thinks they have jurisdicktion is that tucker cancelled her followup meeting at MSU after the herky jerky phone call
Click to expand...
Missed that part but if he did that, yikes!
 
cway313 said:
Right but the incident didnt happen on campus or doing time she was contracted to work for the university. Those protections dont extend for a lifetime. Typically, the duration is the same as the length of the contract/agreement. If this happened months after she left school and wasn't still under contract, Mel might get a good chunk of that 80 million.
Click to expand...

No.

She remained an approved vendor despite the completion of her initial services and was scheduled to return in the future; her complaint really centers around retaliation after, allegedly, she rebuffed Mel's sexual advances. Certain behavior outside the workplace can come into play if the party feels said outside behavior created a hostile work environment or otherwise relates to an adverse employment decision/evaluation. It all comes back to him cancelling services that were previously scheduled after he spanked his meat on the phone.

Mel will not see another dime of that money based on the contract language he agreed to; which states, he will be in breech for "any conduct which constitutes moral turpitude or which, in the university's reasonable judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule upon the university."

If there was any grey area, he wouldn't have been terminated. This information was known to MSU for months and they didn't react to it impulsively. To their credit they followed due process with Mel, but once the threshold for the morality language was met & HR (lawyers) gave the green light, they reacted decisively with his termination.

When someone guarantees you $95M, making you the highest paid University and State employee, they have every right to demand a certain standard of personal & professional conduct. It appears Mel felt the same based on the morality language he agreed to, but unfortunately for him he failed to meet those standards.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Pearson704 said:
No.

She remained an approved vendor despite the completion of her initial services and was scheduled to return in the future; her complaint really centers around retaliation after, allegedly, she rebuffed Mel's sexual advances. Certain behavior outside the workplace can come into play if the party feels said outside behavior created a hostile work environment or otherwise relates to an adverse employment decision/evaluation. It all comes back to him cancelling services that were previously scheduled after he spanked his meat on the phone.

Mel will not see another dime of that money based on the contract language he agreed to; which states, he will be in breech for "any conduct which constitutes moral turpitude or which, in the university's reasonable judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule upon the university."

If there was any grey area, he wouldn't have been terminated. This information was known to MSU for months and they didn't react to it impulsively. To their credit they followed due process with Mel, but once the threshold for the morality language was met & HR (lawyers) gave the green light, they reacted decisively with his termination.

When someone guarantees you $95M, making you the highest paid University and State employee, they have every right to demand a certain standard of personal & professional conduct. It appears Mel felt the same based on the morality language he agreed to, but unfortunately for him he failed to meet those standards.
Click to expand...



Yes.

I would also add that there are certain posters who have (not so succesfully) TRIED to apply legal terms and presumed standards to this situation that do not really apply.

It's not whether she is a W-2 employee. In today's world, there are PLENTY of people who work on a college campus who are NOT employed by the University directly, or are 1099 type "subcontractors". A university cannot avoid its obligations simply because "hey, you're not an official employee".

And it's not whether Mel Tucker is "married" or "separated". It might be CALLED a "morals clause", but we are not talking about 19th century morals.

And it's not whether she "should have done" something different. I realize some people have read some accounts and think they know all the details of how this woman should have handled things differently, but this isn't that different from the old days of "but the woman should have dressed more conservatively".

Everyone is entitled to make friendships with people they work with, or even more casual acquaintances. I go to events all the time with professionals from KPMG and BDO. They work in my building with some frequency. The fact that KPMG/BDO personnel are not "employees" of my company doesn't mean anything if they are subjected to harassment in my office. And I can form friendships with KPMG/BDO personnel, but that doesn't give me the right to try to convert that professional friendship into a romantic relationship.

I absolutely wish this woman had been clear and decisive up-front and told him "no" in a way that left no uncertainty. Often, with people who have been through prior sexual abuse (which had happened to her) and with other considerations (such as "ongoing work"), it can become much more difficult to tell someone no in a way that might impact the future in a negative way.

The fact remains, this is a "Mel Tucker" problem more than anything. I realize that not every poster will see it that way. I realize that some are going to make this "50-50" just to try to "be fair". Or worse, put the majority of the blame on the woman.

But the issue with the FIRING is completely on Mel Tucker. It is. He shouldn't have done what he did. Doesn't matter if he is married or separated. It's a problem because it is in the workplace, not because of one's marital status at any given moment.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes.

I would also add that there are certain posters who have (not so succesfully) TRIED to apply legal terms and presumed standards to this situation that do not really apply.

It's not whether she is a W-2 employee. In today's world, there are PLENTY of people who work on a college campus who are NOT employed by the University directly, or are 1099 type "subcontractors". A university cannot avoid its obligations simply because "hey, you're not an official employee".

And it's not whether Mel Tucker is "married" or "separated". It might be CALLED a "morals clause", but we are not talking about 19th century morals.

And it's not whether she "should have done" something different. I realize some people have read some accounts and think they know all the details of how this woman should have handled things differently, but this isn't that different from the old days of "but the woman should have dressed more conservatively".

Everyone is entitled to make friendships with people they work with, or even more casual acquaintances. I go to events all the time with professionals from KPMG and BDO. They work in my building with some frequency. The fact that KPMG/BDO personnel are not "employees" of my company doesn't mean anything if they are subjected to harassment in my office. And I can form friendships with KPMG/BDO personnel, but that doesn't give me the right to try to convert that professional friendship into a romantic relationship.

I absolutely wish this woman had been clear and decisive up-front and told him "no" in a way that left no uncertainty. Often, with people who have been through prior sexual abuse (which had happened to her) and with other considerations (such as "ongoing work"), it can become much more difficult to tell someone no in a way that might impact the future in a negative way.

The fact remains, this is a "Mel Tucker" problem more than anything. I realize that not every poster will see it that way. I realize that some are going to make this "50-50" just to try to "be fair". Or worse, put the majority of the blame on the woman.

But the issue with the FIRING is completely on Mel Tucker. It is. He shouldn't have done what he did. Doesn't matter if he is married or separated. It's a problem because it is in the workplace, not because of one's marital status at any given moment.
Click to expand...
All I know is that 33% of this is bull****, 35% of this is just you guessing, 14% of this is just you covering up some insecurity from the 5 women that rejected you before you started ******* men. 12% of this is you thinking you're a comedian, 5% of this is you smiling because you think you are so clever and 1% of me is mad I wasted my time replying to a ****** clown.
100% of people that want others to think they know it all are pieces of **** and you overqualify.
 
cway313 said:
All I know is that 33% of this is bull****, 35% of this is just you guessing, 14% of this is just you covering up some insecurity from the 5 women that rejected you before you started ******* men. 12% of this is you thinking you're a comedian, 5% of this is you smiling because you think you are so clever and 1% of me is mad I wasted my time replying to a ****** clown.
100% of people that want others to think they know it all are pieces of **** and you overqualify.
Click to expand...


Do you think people are impressed by your tantrums?

Don't be mad at me because you spent time making multiple (inaccurate) posts about how none of this should matter because Tucker is separated or the woman wasn't "employed" by MSU.

I'm not taking the blame for your ignorance.
 
Advertisement
Memnon said:
The Narduzzi was at Mich ST for 8 years as Dantonio's DC.

He'd probably be a candidate for them, but it would be a retread hire, especially considering he's been mostly average at Pitt.
Click to expand...

Agree. Just figured since a lot of these hires seem to go with the people they have familiarity with.
 
Memnon said:
The Narduzzi was at Mich ST for 8 years as Dantonio's DC.

He'd probably be a candidate for them, but it would be a retread hire, especially considering he's been mostly average at Pitt.
Click to expand...
If I were an MSU fan, I'd vomit if they bring back Narduzzi as HC. Vomit.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Yes.

I would also add that there are certain posters who have (not so succesfully) TRIED to apply legal terms and presumed standards to this situation that do not really apply.

It's not whether she is a W-2 employee. In today's world, there are PLENTY of people who work on a college campus who are NOT employed by the University directly, or are 1099 type "subcontractors". A university cannot avoid its obligations simply because "hey, you're not an official employee".

And it's not whether Mel Tucker is "married" or "separated". It might be CALLED a "morals clause", but we are not talking about 19th century morals.

And it's not whether she "should have done" something different. I realize some people have read some accounts and think they know all the details of how this woman should have handled things differently, but this isn't that different from the old days of "but the woman should have dressed more conservatively".

Everyone is entitled to make friendships with people they work with, or even more casual acquaintances. I go to events all the time with professionals from KPMG and BDO. They work in my building with some frequency. The fact that KPMG/BDO personnel are not "employees" of my company doesn't mean anything if they are subjected to harassment in my office. And I can form friendships with KPMG/BDO personnel, but that doesn't give me the right to try to convert that professional friendship into a romantic relationship.

I absolutely wish this woman had been clear and decisive up-front and told him "no" in a way that left no uncertainty. Often, with people who have been through prior sexual abuse (which had happened to her) and with other considerations (such as "ongoing work"), it can become much more difficult to tell someone no in a way that might impact the future in a negative way.

The fact remains, this is a "Mel Tucker" problem more than anything. I realize that not every poster will see it that way. I realize that some are going to make this "50-50" just to try to "be fair". Or worse, put the majority of the blame on the woman.

But the issue with the FIRING is completely on Mel Tucker. It is. He shouldn't have done what he did. Doesn't matter if he is married or separated. It's a problem because it is in the workplace, not because of one's marital status at any given moment.
Click to expand...
I agree with this but I can say it in a lot less words - his judgement by engaging in a sexual (or borderline sexual relationship whatever the case may be) with a woman hired to teach the players and staff about awareness of rape and sexual assault was so bad and so embarrassing for the school he can't possibly be allowed to remain in charge of the football program.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top