Penn Fired Without Cause (According To Brian T. Smith)

[ABM]

The thought plickens.....

http://www.columbian.com/weblogs/bl...ired-without-cause-still-being-paid-sources-/

Tom Penn, former Portland Trail Blazers vice president of basketball operations, received a formal notice of termination this week stating that he was fired without cause, sources told The Columbian on Friday. In addition, Penn is still being paid by the organization.

The reported lack of cause for Penn’s firing appears to contradict a statement made Thursday by Blazers owner Paul Allen, who said that Penn was fired with “good reason” and that the organization felt it “should make an immediate change.”

An attempt Friday to reach Allen for further comment was unsuccessful.

A Blazers spokesperson said Friday, “We have said all that we are going to say regarding Tom Penn.”........................

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

...so he collects unemployment?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Shady.

 

[handiman]

Are "fired without cause" and "fired with good reason" necessarily contradictory? Ed O ... is one or the other legalese?

And why would the team: a) give Penn formal notice of termination after the fact, and b) state that there was no cause even if there really wasn't. Neither makes much sense.

 

[anonymous gambler]

I don't know about Oregon laws- but in California this would mean simply that they didn't specify any particular reason for the firing- i.e. that they are not trying to claim a "just cause" that would terminate his rights to pay, unemployment, etc under his contract.

 

[Nikolokolus]

"Fired with/without cause" has legal remifications, fired "for a good reason" doesn't mean anything.

 

[barfo]

Are "fired without cause" and "fired with good reason" necessarily contradictory? Ed O ... is one or the other legalese?

And why would the team: a) give Penn formal notice of termination after the fact, and b) state that there was no cause even if there really wasn't. Neither makes much sense.

I'm not Ed, but I believe "with cause" and "without cause" are legal terms, whereas "with good reason" is what the man on the street might say.

With cause I believe means some fundamental term in the employment contract was breached; without cause would be anything from sucking at the job to the boss not liking you to no longer being needed...

They might give him formal notice after the fact if the idea of firing him came upon them so suddenly they didn't have time to prepare the paperwork, and just wanted him out of the building asap.

barfo

 

[Further]

With cause just means something that legally you can fire someone and not have to honor a contract. Like stealing. But firing someone because they make bad decisions/ doesn't get along with people, etc, is not cause in a legal sense but may still be firing for a good reason.

 

[Reep]

Not necessarily. If someone did something bad, so you had to fire them, but you didn't want a law suit on your hands, so you gave them a package to just make it go away, then you could be firing them without cause. I've seen this happen in the corporate world.

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

I don't know about Oregon laws- but in California this would mean simply that they didn't specify any particular reason for the firing- i.e. that they are not trying to claim a "just cause" that would terminate his rights to pay, unemployment, etc under his contract.

I have a feeling it is just that there was no reason given. Oregon is an "at will" state and people can be fired for no damn reason at all. Penn is the one gone, not KP. People need to stop pretending that this is foreshadowing KP's termination. KP was here before Penn and he will be here long after Penn.

 

[The Professional Fan]

I have a feeling it is just that there was no reason given. Oregon is an "at will" state and people can be fired for no damn reason at all. Penn is the one gone, not KP. People need to stop pretending that this is foreshadowing KP's termination. KP was here before Penn and he will be here long after Penn.

Not unless he chooses to leave on his own, and that is how this will play out, IMO. KP will leave the Blazers because of the Penn firing, even if Portland "shows interest" in extending his contract. He and Penn will reunite and go to another team after the season.

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

Not unless he chooses to leave on his own, and that is how this will play out, IMO. KP will leave the Blazers because of the Penn firing, even if Portland "shows interest" in extending his contract. He and Penn will reunite and go to another team after the season.

You are crazy. There is no way he is going to leave the team that HE built. This is far dumber than anything I have ever read from Mixum. KP is not that far up Penn's ass... Fuck, some people have some crazy ideas... Leaving to reunite with Penn...

 

[mobes23]

Firing someone 'with cause' usually has a relatively high bar (depending on the employment agreement) and generally is pretty contentious. I've seen a fair number of situations where a company dumps someone without cause despite the fact the employee had some pretty egregious misdeeds.

The cases where people have been fired with cause have all been pretty bad situations, usually involving the employee committing crimes.

Personally, I don't think it tells us much of anything to know Penn was fired without cause. And, yeah, I'm another effing lawyer.

 

[The Professional Fan]

You are crazy. There is no way he is going to leave the team that HE built. This is far dumber than anything I have ever read from Mixum. KP is not that far up Penn's ass... Fuck, some people have some crazy ideas... Leaving to reunite with Penn...

So much for opinions! I actually think they fired Penn, for no reason, so KP would just leave instead of firing him. Avoid the PR nightmare of firing him. I think you underestimate the relationship Penn and KP had and how valuable Penn was to KP. I could be wrong, I could be right. Either way, I'm no Mixum. Dick.

 

[Denny Crane]

Firing someone 'with cause' usually has a relatively high bar (depending on the employment agreement) and generally is pretty contentious. I've seen a fair number of situations where a company dumps someone without cause despite the fact the employee had some pretty egregious misdeeds.

The cases where people have been fired with cause have all been pretty bad situations, usually involving the employee committing crimes.

Personally, I don't think it tells us much of anything to know Penn was fired without cause. And, yeah, I'm another effing lawyer.

This was my understanding all along. Unless he had some clause in his contract that he clearly violated or committed a crime, he wouldn't be fired for cause. At Will means they can fire him without reason, though I suspect there might be an issue if it were because of his race or a handicap or something.

I don't think we'll ever know the real reason. Probably reasons. There's always two sides to the story.

 

[ucatchtrout]

I don't know about Oregon laws- but in California this would mean simply that they didn't specify any particular reason for the firing- i.e. that they are not trying to claim a "just cause" that would terminate his rights to pay, unemployment, etc under his contract.

And that is exactly what it means in Oregon. Oregon has an "at will" employment law which gives employers or employees the right to terminate the business relationship at any point if either decide it isn't working out. It makes things much easier and eliminates the pissing contests than can happen over whether something is justified or not.

All we really know is Penns termination had something to do with an HR issue. There was likely a severance package that both sides agreed to that included an agreement by both parties to hold each other blameless and to not say anything bad about each other. For all we know Penn had an ongoing personality conflict with someone at Vulcan or at the office and he ended up on the losing end of the argument.

To say he was fired for no reason is bullshit. There was a reason. There always is.

 

[WillG]

With that kind of ambiguousness, maybe he really did bone someone's woman?

 

[barfo]

With that kind of ambiguousness, maybe he really did bone someone's woman?

Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has ever happened.

In fact, if it was KP's woman, that would account for the hangdog look.

barfo

 

[CaptNapalm]

The thought that keeps running through my mind is that he was spending a little too much time working for his St. Jude commitments on time he was billing to Blazers work. They don't want to bash a guy for helping a charity out but he was essentially stealing so they give him the axe fire without cause to avoid the lawsuit.

 

[<-=*PdX*=->]

So much for opinions! I actually think they fired Penn, for no reason, so KP would just leave instead of firing him. Avoid the PR nightmare of firing him. I think you underestimate the relationship Penn and KP had and how valuable Penn was to KP. I could be wrong, I could be right. Either way, I'm no Mixum. Dick.

Fool, I didn't say you were Mixim. I said that your opinion was constructed, in THIS manner, much worse than the usual Mixum we see. They did not fire Peen to get to KP. It is amusing that you are even coming to this conclusion. Penn did something to get fired, he wasn't fired to get KP fired or to get KP to leave. As I already said... KP was here before Penn, the Penn situation obviously didn't work out for whatever reason, we don't need to know the real answer at all (its not our business), and KP will be here long after Penn as he already is. Get over the conspiracy theory.

 

[barfo]

Let's say he ate lots of pistachios. And let's say that Jody Allen doesn't like pistachios. And that his gutters haven't been cleaned in years, and Vulcan checks all employee gutters on a random basis and assesses fines. And suppose he paid the fine in pennies as a protest, but the weight of the sacks of coins caused a desk to collapse, slightly injuring someone in the accounting department. And that his 17 year old child was seen during school hours at the mall, and that his car tires are slightly beyond their tread life. And that he was a little too fond of the phrase "the Penn is mightier than the sword".

barfo

 

[WillG]

Fool, I didn't say you were Mixim. I said that your opinion was constructed, in THIS manner, much worse than the usual Mixum we see. They did not fire Peen to get to KP. It is amusing that you are even coming to this conclusion.:

Isn't that form of persuasion outlawed in the Geneva convention?

 

[The Professional Fan]

Fool, I didn't say you were Mixim. I said that your opinion was constructed, in THIS manner, much worse than the usual Mixum we see. They did not fire Peen to get to KP. It is amusing that you are even coming to this conclusion. Penn did something to get fired, he wasn't fired to get KP fired or to get KP to leave. As I already said... KP was here before Penn, the Penn situation obviously didn't work out for whatever reason, we don't need to know the real answer at all (its not our business), and KP will be here long after Penn as he already is. Get over the conspiracy theory.

I hope you're right, but my gut tells me KP will not be here next year, for whatever reason. I've stated my conspiracy theory and I'm so far from a conspiracy theorist it's not even funny. But like I said - I hope you're right. I hope it's all as straight forward as Blazers management would lead us to believe.

 

[hasoos]

It doesn't matter. In oregon you don't have to have a reason to fire somebody.

 

[oldguy]

You are crazy. There is no way he is going to leave the team that HE built. This is far dumber than anything I have ever read from Mixum. KP is not that far up Penn's ass... Fuck, some people have some crazy ideas... Leaving to reunite with Penn...

DUDE! That's just harsh. Mixum has set that bar so high that nobody on this forum will EVER be able to clear it.

Go Blazers