Harold Kasselman's Blog - Posts Tagged "wild-thing"

A jury of four women and four men were sworn in today in Camden County Superior Court, New Jersey. They will be deciding the civil suit brought by former baseball player and legal analyst Mitch Williams against his former employer the MLB Network. Some of the those on the witness list include former players and current analysts Bill Ripken and Harold Reynolds. It's not clear if they will actually testify.Williams alleges that the network terminated his professional services contract unlawfully. He had been an analyst from 2009 until his termination in June of 2014. The MLB Network counters that Williams breached the terms of the contract by violating the" morals clause" of the contract, and therefor the firing was lawful.
The facts of the suit are presented in a prior blog(See below), but they concern a little league tournament in Maryland where Williams coached his son's team.
Today Judge Michael Kassel made some significant legal rulings on motions presented by the parties. Initially, the judge ruled that the defendant network would have to prove the incidents relied upon them for firing Williams. In other words, he ruled that it was not enough that the public had heard about the alleged offending incidents which then put the network in poor light with the public. Rather it is now incumbent upon the MLB Network to prove that Williams actually committed the acts which led to his termination.
Secondly, the judge ruled against Williams' attorney in seeking consequential damages in this contract case. The Williams' team had argued that he was entitled to sue, not only for the two lost years of income(about 1.2 million dollars), but also for the lost opportunities of jobs as a result of the bad publicity caused by the termination. In other words, they argued that Williams' reputation suffered so much that he was no longer asked to do analysis for Fox or other networks for baseball games. Those opportunities brought $4,500 per game and amounted to a loss of $35,000 per season for two years or more. The court relied on a federal decision involving the termination of actress Vanessa Redgrave in the 80's. She had been terminated by the Boston Symphony orchestra for political statements made by her about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. She thereafter had difficulty obtaining jobs and sued for consequential damages above and beyond the performance with Boston, alleging that the firing and not the statements were the cause of her difficulties. The court said her proofs were too speculative and Judge Kassel relied upon that decision as correct law in the area of a professional service contract.
But the judge did rule in favor of Williams on a motion to dismiss made by the network. The network sought to have his claim dismissed on the grounds that he had violated a confidentiality clause of their contract. In it, matters of compensation were to be kept confidential and not disclosed. But Williams filed a copy of his contract with his civil complaint and it was made public. Judge Kassel ruled that the disclosure of the contract was not a material breach and was necessary to pursue his claim in court.
Lastly the court dealt two evidentiary blows to the network. The court rules that the network could not introduce a portion of Williams' book "Straight Talk by Mitch Williams". The network wanted those portion admitted wherein Williams admitted that he had deliberately thrown or beaned batters when he played. That admission could have bolstered the network's case that Williams instructed his pitcher via his catcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. The second ruling barred the network from bringing in evidence of similar "bad conduct" concerning Williams' daughter during a basketball in 2008.
Opening arguments will begin tomorrow at 9:30.
On January 3, 2017 Mitch Williams, former major league pitcher and television analyst, is scheduled to appear in Camden N.J. Superior Court for a civil trial. Williams, a former relief pitcher for several teams, is perhaps best known for the walk-off home run he delivered to Joe Carter of the Toronto Blue Jays in the sixth game in 1993 that clinched the World Series. In recent years, from 2011 to 2014, he had appeared on the MLB Network as an analyst.
Williams known as "Wild Thing" in his baseball career for his control problems and awkward pitching delivery(and perhaps related to the Charlie Sheen character Rickie "Wild Thing" Vaughn in the movie Major League), filed suit against MLB Network for breach of contract. In his own court pleadings, Williams revealed that his contract called for him to be paid $700,000 for the 2015 calendar year. (The contract was included in the court filings)The network initially suspended Williams for actions as a coach at a youth baseball tournament in Maryland(Ripken tournament) in May 2014. His son played on a N.J. team in that tournament and Williams was his coach.
Initially, MLB Network offered to reinstate Williams if he agreed to sign an amended contract that forbade him to attend any of his children's games and required "therapeutic counseling". Williams refused those conditions. He was terminated in June based on a morals clause in the contract which permitted termination if Williams committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement.
So why was Williams terminated? During the course of the tournament a sports website called Deadspin published two separate accounts of Williams' behavior on the field during two games which the Network found to be a violation of that morals clause. (In the first game Williams was actually ejected from the game)Those actions were reported as follows:
1. He cursed and used the "f" word in the presence of ten year old players and umpires. 2. had heated arguments and confrontations with umpires(face to face in which others had to intervene) which caused delays in the game. 3. called an umpire a "mother****er. 4. yelled to parents in the stands something about getting an umpire fired. 5. called the opposing N.J. teams' pitcher a "pussy in the presence of his own team's players. 6. Directed his catcher to bean the opposing team's pitcher when he came to bat.
In that regard, Deadspin published pictures of Williams and an umpire face to face in an apparent heated argument, In addition they published a video of the second game which appears to show Williams talking to his catcher near home plate before the opposing pitcher came to bat. The catcher is then seen trotting out to the mound and talking to his pitcher. The first pitch thrown by the Williams coached pitcher hits the opposing pitcher in the ribs.
Williams denied all of the allegations and ultimately filed a law suit against Gawker Media, the former owner of the Deadspin website for defamation(and other related claims) and breach of contract against MLB Network.
In June 2016 Judge Michael Kassel granted a summary judgment motion in favor of Gawker Media on the allegation that they had defamed Williams. The judge found that Williams was a "public figure" within the meaning of first amendment free speech law. That finding is pertinent in the law because it then required a higher burden of proof for Williams to prevail. It was his burden to prove that the published stories were posted with "actual malice". In other words, Williams had to prove that the posts were made with actual knowledge that they were false or in reckless disregard of whether they were true or not. He also found that based upon Deadspin's multiple sources of witnesses(children, umpires, parents, spectators, photographs, and video), the posts were either "substantially true or protected opinion". Because they judge found there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go forward against Gawker media, he dismissed the case as to them.
Now it is Williams against MLB Network for breach of contract. It is interesting to note that a unique legal issue remains to be sorted out at trial. Does the network have to prove that Williams actually said and did the things that were reported? Or is it enough that MLB Network has an honest belief that he did based on the reporting? Or does what really matter the public's perception of whether Williams did or said those things? If the public believes the reporting, doesn't that in and of itself demonstrate a violation of the morals clause? And how does one determine what the public believes?
Those questions may be answered if the case is actually tried on January 3, 2017.
UPDATE: The trial was postponed at Williams" attorney's request. The new date is in June.

The first witness called by Mitch Williams was an adverse party; namely former President of the MLB Network Anthony Petitti, who is currently the COO of Major League Baseball. (The Network is a subsidiary of Major League Baseball). Mr. Petitti, who succeeded Rob Manfred in the COO position, was the man who hired Williams in 2009 and who also terminated him on June 26th, 2014. Williams' lawyer successfully endeavored to narrow down the specific provision of the morals clause that was deemed worthy of termination of the contract. That provision allowed for termination if the artist(Williams):" committed an act(s)
that brought Williams into public disrepute, scandal, or offended a substantial group of the community, or reflected unfavorably on any party to the agreement." Then counsel for Williams went through the allegations individually with Petitti and suggested that they were based on hearsay, unnamed sources, and not reliable factual accounts of the events of the May 10 and 11 ball games in the tournament for 10 year old youngsters. Counsel also got Pettiti to admit that he had not waited for Williams to produce statements of individuals in his defense.
But Petitti retorted in a soft and barely audible tones that he had seen a photograph, which was also shown to the jury, of Williams chin to chin with an umpire. That he had thereafter been given a video of the games on Saturday and Sunday by Billy Ripken(current MLB Network analyst and former player) which confirmed that Williams had been ejected and that he had continued to argue with the umpires for seven minutes, including an alleged profanity filled rant, before he left the game. Pettiti admitted he had no direct knowledge of the "acts" but that he had spoken to Williams by phone after the first incident and yet again after Sunday's incident. He said he found Williams' explanation "not credible" when compared with the video and accounts from Deadspin(a sports website that published two articles about the "acts" alleged. Williams told him he had his back turned to the umpire and yelled into the crowd with a shrug that we will just have to get us some new umpires which resulted in his ejection. (The attorney for MLB Network had argued in his opening that turning one's back to an umpire and pretending to talk to the crowd was a ruse used to avoid ejection.) Testimony also revealed that one umpire had challenged Williams to a fight in the future during the episode. Pettiti also said he disbelieved Williams' account of the alleged instruction by Williams to his team's catcher(the catcher is the son of Williams) to tell his own pitcher to bean the opposing batter. (the other team's pitcher) The video which Petitti saw after the Sunday game show Williams talking to his son between innings. Then the son(catcher) is seen walking to the mound and talks to the pitcher. On the very first pitch the batter is struck with the pitched ball. Petitti quotes Williams' as saying that he merely told the catcher to tell the pitcher to "knock the batter off the plate" and not to throw at his head or hit him. Petitti said he felt even by his own admission Williams acted at least recklessly for telling a 10 year old to "knock him off the plate" because such tender years children don't have the necessary control to pin point where the ball will go.
Petitti said he felt Williams did not display in that conversation an understanding of the quality and nature of his inappropriate acts. Those acts also included an allegation by the child who was hit by the pitch that he was called "pussy" by Williams in hearing of many players.
Counsel for Williams primary examination was to suggest that Petitti had no real proof upon which to fire her client and that he had fired Williams in retaliation when Williams retained a lawyer. The examination revealed that Petitti had been willing, even after a commercial sponsor cancelled a Dove television spot with Williams, to try and save Williams' job based on the above conditions. Pettiti said he had been negotiating with Williams' agent Russ Spielman from May 16th, when Williams began his suspension, for an amended contract for several weeks about conditions which also included anger management and an admission of wrong doing. Spielman, according to MLB Network's lawyer, urged Williams to accept the offer and told Williams that if he didn't, he was looking at "scorched earth".
Negotiations continued until Williams retained a lawyer who wrote to Pettiti and said that MLB Network had breached the contract by not paying, that Williams denied any wrong doing, and that counsel wanted to negotiate a settlement. The next day Pettiti fired Willimas. Counsel for Williams suggested by her questioning that Petitti fired her client not because of any proof of wrong doing, but rather because he had hired a lawyer to defend his contractual rights. Pettiti denied that and said he fired Williams at that point because he had tried to reach out to Spielman and got no response for three weeks. When he got a letter from a different lawyer( not one who had negotiated the original contract) which denied any wrong doing, Pettiti felt he had no recourse but to terminate Williams. He also said another incident bolstered his opinion that Williams was unrepentant. During that interim, Williams had been in the office of a female publicity relations staffer and Williams had brought the woman to tears in the public office by cursing and pounding his hand on her desk. Testimony ended as the video of the games were about to be shown. Earlier Judge Kassel had ruled that MLB Network was not permitted to argue that the umpires had smelled alcohol on Williams' breath and that his eyes were red and his speech slurred. The basis was a discovery violation in that MLB Network did not specify that as a factor pre-trial.

It is anticipated that the judge in the Williams vs. MLB Network may charge the jury at the end of the day. If so, they have to decide if there was a wrongful termination and if so, what are the damages. During Williams' testimony his counsel brought out his salary for his five year contract plus the one year option year. This was elicited so the jury would have a basis to determine how much money to find he should recover if he was wrongfully terminated. The salary as I remember,was to be:
Contract year November through October 2014 was $625,000. (he was fired June 26th, 2016). For the following twelve months, $650,000. Then the next year would have been $700,000. The option year was to be $750,000. Currently Williams is working for a Mt. Laurel, NJ company called Raymond Transportation. He is a corporate liaison whose job is to get new business for shipping freight on long haulers. His salary is $84,000 per year without bonuses. Williams now resides in Texas.

The defense(MLB Network) cross-examined Mitch Williams Tuesday in an effort to paint him as anything but "trying to create a good atmosphere for kids". Williams coached his son's team the Wild Things against the Titans.
The major thrust of the cross was an attempt, through circumstantial evidence, to prove that Williams had indeed ordered his pitcher to hit the opposing pitcher when the latter batted. The motive was allegedly retaliation for acts done during the game; in other words it was part of the code or unwritten rules of baseball. The defense reminded the jury through his questioning of Williams that the latter had said he had told his own pitcher merely to pitch the child on the inside part of the plate because the opposing pitcher had hit a scorching double the prior at bat. But defense counsel played video of all of the at bats of the opposing pitcher. The prior at bat was a hot grounder to third for an out. That contradicted Williams' version of why he had told his own pitcher to throw inside and jam the batter rather than pitch outside. The defense ridiculed Williams for a faulty memory despite the testimony of Williams on direct that he had "almost a photographic memory of baseball games." Then the defense effort was to paint a portrait of an irate team and their coach Williams because of the play of the opposing pitcher. By playing the video of the game, counsel pointed out that two innings earlier the opposing pitcher had tried to leg out a ground ball and stepped or spiked the first baseman's foot.(A Williams player). The video shows Williams' son the catcher seemingly annoyed at the play and seemingly gesturing while other of his teammates gathered near first base near the opposing player that had either stepped on or spiked their first baseman. At the end of the inning the video shows Williams talking to his son while they walked into the dugout. The next inning Williams' son strikes out on a curve ball and seemingly stares at the pitcher. When the Titans come to bat, video shows Williams talking to his catcher and then his son(catcher) goes to the mound and talks with the pitcher. They look towards the dugout. Then the opposing pitcher comes to bat. He first goes down the third base line and tells his coach something and steps to the plate. It is anticipated the child will say that he told his coach he suspected that they were going to hit him with a pitch. When he is hit, he gestures with outstretched arms as if to say, I told you so.
Williams adamantly denied he was "trying to send a message" by hitting the opposing pitcher. He maintained he would never hurt a child or try to do so. Moreover defense counsel suggested through questioning that Williams called the opposing pitcher a "pussy" in between innings after his son struck out on a curve ball. He suggested it was in retaliation for making his son look bad and for stepping on the foot of the Wild Thing first baseman. Williams again laughed off the suggestion but did say the Titan pitcher should not be throwing curve balls at age ten.
Then a large portion of the day centered around Williams' behavior or innocence regarding his reason for being ejected in the first game on Saturday May 10th. Williams again denied cursing but did admit after some lengthy questioning that he regretted arguing for 7-8 minutes and that he should have left sooner. Still, he denied that he cursed at the umpire and the video does not contradict him. But he did admit telling a parent in the stand that he would find some other job for the umpire in the future. That was the apparent reason for the ejection since the umpire said "are you threatening me?" He then got very close to Williams and the latter said, "what are you going to do, beat me up?" The umpires replied "anytime, anyplace, anywhere." At that point another umpire interceded as did other coaches to break up the argument. Williams alleged that he merely responded to a threat by the umpire.
In a similar vein the defense attempted to show that Williams had an unsuitable temperament to coach ten year old children. Williams admitted replying to an email from one of his player's mother regarding a game in early May. In response to the question, "how did you do in Friday's game?", Williams said, "the asshole umpire called strikes that hit the ground. It was all I could do to keep from hitting him after the game-we lost 3-0." But in his explanation, Williams said he was merely talking to an adult about how he felt but would not act on it.
Similarly, Williams admitted writing another email to a parent I which he said "come fall, another mother's son won't be on the team if his mother doesn't shut up." Williams again explained that he had had a long standing relationship with that mother and that it was not what it seemed to be.
Then the defense asked Williams whether it was true that he had accused a son of Craig Yates of betraying Williams by going with another team after Williams had given the child individual coaching. Williams admitted that was true.
But then the plaintiff(Williams) attorney brought in two witnesses to support Williams' account of the weekend tournament. Corey Ahart, a New Jersey attorney and part-time municipal judge testified that he was an assistant coach for the New Jersey Wild(Williams' team), had known Williams as seriously caring for the safety of the children, and had gone to the aid of opposing team's children when necessary. Ahart coached both games of the tournament. He denied ever hearing Williams curse to the umpire or use the word "pussy". He supported Williams' testimony regarding the ejection as well. On cross, Ahart admitted he wouldn't necessarily have heard what was said near first base since he was in the dugout. He maintained he did not know the reason for the ejection of Williams and didn't know what Williams may have told his son about throwing inside or worse. But he would never believe Williams would do such a thing.
The next witness, a senior VP at Morgan Stanley Craig Yates testified similarly to Ahart. He was also an assistant coach for the Wild, and said he could hear from third base and that Williams at first base had not cursed. He is a good friend of Williams and often played golf with him and John Kruk a former ball player and current color man for the Phillies broadcasts. He said he never heard Williams curse at any game and that if he had heard anyone direct a pitcher to hit a batter, he would have left the field. On cross, Yates admitted that he had loaned Williams $135,000 after his termination on an interest free basis. The defense implied that it was in Yates' interest for Williams to win his trial so that the loan would be paid back, and therefore had a motive in the outcome of the case.
The plaintiff will call another witness tomorrow and the defense will begin.

The defendant MLB Network began its summation by telling the jury that they had just one simple question to answer; namely did Mitch Williams commit any act that violated the morals cause(section 1503) of his contract? Peter Hughes argued that, rather than foster youth baseball, Williams had "created a tension convention" in which he made a spectacle of himself during a 10 year old little league tournament in May of 2014.
Hughes enumerated the various act(s) that would justify the jury finding that Williams had placed himself in public contempt, ridicule, or scandal, or had put himself in public disrepute. And therefore he had reduced his own commercial value and that of the network itself if he had not been fired.( see other blog posts for specifics) He told the jury the fact that Williams was unable to obtain employment for 30 months after the firing was proof that the bad publicity tainted him and the network. He argued that Williams had made the weekend a bad experience for all who attended by constantly badgering, berating, and threatening to get the umpires fired. He said the umpires gave Williams too much leeway until they finally ejected him.He emphasized that a then 10 year old catcher for the opposing team(Titans) heard Williams turn towards the opposing pitcher and say that the Titans pitcher was a "pussy" for not throwing his son(Williams') a fastball rather than curve ball. That child, now 13, did testify at trial.
Then the attorney used a circumstantial evidence theory to prove that Williams had ordered his own son(the team's catcher) to tell his pitcher to bean the opposing pitcher when he came to bat. No one directly testified that they were told or heard Williams order the bean ball. Neither side called Williams' son or the Jersey Wild pitcher. He showed video of the game. He argued that the Titans pitcher had stepped on the first baseman's foot running at first base and that Williams' son threw down his helmet in disgust. This was also after the Titans' pitcher had struck out Williams' son the prior inning on a curve ball which Williams took exception to, and caused further tension. The video show Williams talking to his catcher(his son) between innings and the latter goes to the mound to talk to the pitcher. The attorney argued the two boys then glared at the opposing pitcher who was getting ready to bat and then looked at Williams. The batter went down the third base line to talk to his coach and told him, "I'm going to get hit." On the very first pitch the batter got hit by the pitch and raised his arms as if to say, I told you". Hughes argued Williams had lied on the stand when he said he merely told the catcher to pitch inside because he had hit a double on an outside pitch earlier. Hughes reminded the jury that the batter had actually grounded out. Hughes said that even if he had merely said pitch him inside or move him off the plate, that was reckless indifference in view of the hit batter by the same pitcher a day earlier. Hughes summed up Williams' testimony and case by suggesting Williams would have you believe everyone else lied except Williams. He also reminded the jury that the weekend events were reported in Deadspin(then the most widely read sports blog), The NY Daily News, Bleacher report, USA Today, SI, and caused harm to the network which justified the firing. He said the defense should not be faulted monetarily for not firing Williams for a month. While he said they were foolish, they were trying to work out some compromise to allow Williams to stay under three conditions. He also argued that it would be absurd to award Williams damages for the 2016 option year because no network would have kept him after the publicity.
Williams' attorney Laurie Mattiocchi hammered away at the burden of proof that the network to not only prove the acts but also to prove they were significant enough to warrant termination. She went through the allegations in the lawsuit one by one. She emphasized that there was no "profanity laced tirade" as was portrayed by the defense. She emphasized that based on the testimony even the two umpires gave inconsistent versions of the nature of the profanity, when it occurred, whether it was during or before and after the game, and whether children heard it. Despite the allegation that her client called an umpire a mother f****er, she said not even one parent heard it nor did the home plate umpire. She said the audio and video of the games contradicted the defense claim as well. She hammered away at the lack of evidence presented by the defense-no parents heard anything or saw Williams bump the umpire. No one brought in cell phone recordings of the game to support the defense.
Regarding the "pussy" allegation, she said the sole witness at trial was a 10 year old who may have thought he heard something like it and that by "suggestion", he may have believed that it was actually said. She reminded the jury by video that the umpire and coaches were close to the child when he said he heard it and yet neither the umpires, coaches, or parents testified to corroborate the claim. Furthermore, she argued from the video that even the youngster was not close enough to have heard it said. She also called out the defense for promising in its opening that they would call two children when in fact only one testified.
On the bean ball she argued that it was a "conspiracy theory" without substance. No witness testified to what was said, despite close proximity of the umpire, and she pointed out that the plate umpire did not feel it had been an intentional hit by pitch.
She also reminded the jury of the testimony of one Titans player's parents who said he heard one or more of the Titans coach say "they will bury Mitch." He also asked the coach(s) to retract what they had said to Deadspin (if in fact they had) because it was not true. She argued that if the act(s) had been so repugnant, why had the network allowed Williams to work the few day after the weekend. And why had they been trying to amend the contract to permit Williams to remain on air if the acts had put Williams in public disrepute?
Finally she urged the jury to find that the network was reasonably likely to grant Williams an option year based on the fact that the CEO Anthony Pettiti had given Williams a $50,000 bonus in 2010, had exercised an option in 2011 to extend the contract and was willing to amend the contract rather than fire him. It was only after Williams had retained her as counsel, did the network fire her client she argued.
Judge Michael Kassel, Camden County Superior Court charged the eight person jury that the network had the burden to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence(51% rather than beyond a reasonable doubt or by clear and convincing evidence). The parties agreed to keep the eight jurors rather than drop it to six with two alternates as is their choice. The parties agreed that six of the eight must agree either way for a verdict. According to the judge, the amount of contract damages exceeds 1.5 million dollars. If they jury adds the option year, the damages would be over 2.2 million. The jury will deliberate tomorrow.

A jury deliberated for under three hours in the civil suit of Mitch Williams vs. MLB Network. The jury of eight split 6-2 in favor of the plaintiff in his breach of employment contract case. They awarded Williams over 1.5 million dollars. The jury was 7-1 against Williams on whether he deserved damages for his option year which could have meant an additional $700,000.
This ends the three year saga that began in a Mother's Day tournament in 2014 and ended a few minutes ago. It remains to be seen if Williams will be able to obtain employment as an analyst for baseball teams in the future. He now resides in Texas. While the award seems like a lot of money, it is subject to substantial legal fees, and federal taxes.