Mitch Williams vs. MLB Network
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 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.
No comments have been added yet.
