Would Chris Bosio Win a Wrongful Termination Suit?
Last week, Detroit Tigers pitching coach Chris Bosio was fired by GM Al Avila for what was then described as “making an insensitive comment directed at a team employee.” Though he didn’t disclose the nature of the insensitive comment at the time, Avila said that the team has a “zero tolerance” policy for the conduct in question, adding that he holds team employees “to the highest standards of personal conduct on and off the field.”
Later, however, ESPN reported that Bosio was fired for calling someone a “spider monkey.” The Tigers and Bosio differ, however, on the person to whom Bosio was referring. Bosio insists that “Spider Monkey” is a nickname for Tigers LOOGY Daniel Stumpf, currently on the disabled list. Per USA Today’s Bob Nightengale:
Bosio insists he was not using the word in a racial and disparaging context, and that it was not directed toward the clubhouse attendant. He says he referring to injured pitcher Daniel Stumpf, a white pitcher from Humble, Texas.
“Someone in our coaches’ room asked me (Monday afternoon) about Stumpf,” Bosio said. “And I said, “Oh, you mean, ‘Spider Monkey.’ That’s his nickname. He’s a skinny little white kid who makes all of these funny faces when he works out.
“The kid thought we were talking about him. He got all upset. He assumed we were talking about him. I said, “No, no, no. We’re talking about Stumpf.’
“And that was it. I swear on my mom and dad’s graves, there was nothing else to it.”
But other witnesses relayed to Ken Rosenthal and Katie Strang of the Athletic a very different story:
Bosio called the attendant, who is African-American, a “monkey,” according to four team sources. The remark was directed toward the young man, who was collecting towels from the coaches’ room at the time, during a post-game gripe session in which Bosio was lamenting about a pitcher.
During this exchange, Bosio made a derogatory comment about one of the Tigers pitchers and then gestured toward the attendant before adding, “like this monkey here,” the sources said. The attendant pushed back at Bosio for the comment, and an additional team employee witnessed the exchange. Bosio was provided an opportunity to apologize to the attendant after his outburst but declined to do so, according to multiple sources.
And Stumpf himself didn’t back up Bosio, either.
“‘Spider Monkey’ is not a nickname I have been called or I’m familiar with,” Daniel Stumpf said. https://t.co/0iEXzDxyvu
— anthony fenech (@anthonyfenech) June 29, 2018
Bosio is insistent that he was wrongfully terminated — so much so, in fact, that he has threatened to sue the team for wrongful termination. To make out a claim for wrongful termination, a plaintiff generally has to prove that they were fired for an impermissible reason. Most often, that impermissible reason relates to whether the fired employee was terminated for being a member of what’s called a “protected class.” Depending on the state, that includes things like race, gender, gender identity, religion, national origin, disability, and citizenship or immigration status. But Bosio, as a straight, cisgender, white male, doesn’t appear to be a member of a protected class, and there’s no evidence he was terminated for being any of those things in any event.
Michigan law also provides for other bases to bring wrongful termination claims.
Written Contracts: Any written contracts that cover employment and termination will be considered according to both contract law and employment law. Generally, the written contract will govern the terms of the employment and the employment will not be considered “at-will.” Violations of contract terms may form the basis of a wrongful discharge lawsuit.
Oral Promises: Michigan will also consider whether your employer made any oral promises regarding your termination procedures. For example, if they told you that they would not fire you within the next six months, and you relied on this promise to your detriment, it may be considered wrongful termination. However, the oral promise exception is very difficult to prove and will be subject to rigorous analysis in court.
Public Policy Violations: Employers in Michigan may not terminate at-will employees if the termination violates public policy. Examples of public policy violation include firing an employee in retaliation for reporting health and safety violations or for firing an employee who refuses to commit an illegal act.
Legitimate Expectations: If your employer has created an environment that causes an employee to believe that certain practices are applicable to all employees, this may create a “legitimate expectation” in the mind of the employee. For example, language contained in an employee handbook can cause an employee to reasonably expect their employer to follow certain termination procedures.
In practice, oral promises are incredibly hard to prove, and don’t seem applicable here anyway. “Public policy” is hard to define, but lawyers generally use it to denote what we, as a society, have decided is the Right Thing to Do. So, for instance, requiring an employee to sell cocaine or kill business rivals would violate public policy. That doesn’t seem to apply here, either. The other options are for breach of a written contract and breach of “legitimate expectations,” which in some states is also known as “reasonable reliance.”
Bosio’s strongest claim would probably be for breach of a written contract. Michigan is an at-will employment state, which generally means that an employer can legally fire an employee at any time for almost any reason. But at-will employment doesn’t apply to contract employees, and Bosio, like nearly all other major-lkeague managers and coaches, worked for the Tigers pursuant to a written contract. When the Tigers fired Bosio, they terminated his contract.
In a vacuum, terminating an employee under contract before the end of the term (length) of that contract would be a breach of that contract. That’s because, when an employer signs a contract with an employee, the employer is promising to employ, and pay, the employee for the entirety of the contract term. It’s similar to a lease, where you agree to pay rent for a certain period of time. But there are reasons, called affirmative defenses, which excuse performance of a contract. And one of them is that the other party breached first. In other words, if you and I agree that I’ll pay you $10 for a ticket to a Yankees-Red Sox game, you are excused from giving me the ticket if I don’t give you the money. And the same applies to Bosio’s situation: if Bosio’s comment breached his contract with the Tigers, then the club was legally excused from continuing to employ him and could legally end his contract before the term was up.
Coaches’ written contracts aren’t publicly available. But players’ contracts have clauses requiring certain standards of personal conduct like this:

And this:

Most written employment contracts have similar language, requiring employees to comply with employer rules and generally not do anything to bring disrepute upon the employer. The phrase “high standards of personal conduct” is obviously pretty vague, but if the team really does have rules against racial epithets as Avila says, Bosio’s statement is almost certainly covered. And — assuming Bosio isn’t telling the truth — calling an African-American clubhouse attendant a “monkey” almost certainly violates even the vague “personal conduct” language.
If Bosio is telling the truth, however, and if there aren’t specific written rules, Bosio may have a claim under those “legitimate expectations.” In other words, an employee can’t be terminated for reasonably relying on those written and oral policies that an employer made them aware of, and for not following rules they weren’t aware of. But that seems a stretch, for a few reasons. Multiple reports have indicated that Detroit does, in fact, have a personal conduct policy. And, from a practical perspective, reports indicate that there seem to be far more witnesses supporting the Tigers’ version of events than Bosio’s. In fact, Des Bieler at the Washington Post relayed that this one incident may have been just the tip of the iceberg.
There was more to it for the Tigers, who said they included legal counsel in interviewing people involved in the incident before the team’s general manager, Al Avila, decided to terminate Bosio’s contract. “We know what we did, and why we did it, and we’ll see where it goes from there,” Avila told Nightengale.
Similarly, The Detroit News‘ Lynn Henning passed this along:
Bosio had been a problem since the start of spring training, not because of any serious flaws on the pitching or tutorial side, but because of the occasionally abusive way in which he treated people.
Although pitchers generally liked his approach and his style, it was his demeanor outside of a narrow pitching construct that had made him increasingly a problem, particularly with fellow coaches who disliked him, the source told The Detroit News.
And, while it may be entirely unconnected, it’s also worth noting that Bosio had a surprising and unceremonious exit from Chicago’s North Side late last year.
Ultimately, we weren’t there and we don’t know what happened. But based on the reports we do have, Bosio has an uphill climb here. Whereas Bosio may have a prima facie case for wrongful termination, it does not seem as though it would be a winning one. And he runs a significant risk of making this worse for himself depending on what comes out in discovery and at trial in any case he brings. On the surface, at least, it seems that the Tigers made the right decision.
Sheryl Ring is a litigation attorney and General Counsel at Open Communities, a non-profit legal aid agency in the Chicago suburbs. You can reach her on twitter at @Ring_Sheryl. The opinions expressed here are solely the author's. This post is intended for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice.
Agree with the overall analysis. Unless the Tigers are completely distorting what happened, they had grounds to fire him under whatever personal conduct clause appeared in his contract. But I don’t agree with this:
“But Bosio, as a straight, cisgender, white male, doesn’t appear to be a member of a protected class, and there’s no evidence he was terminated for being any of those things in any event.”
At least under federal law, one does not have to be a member of a minority racial or ethnic group to be protected from adverse employment action due to race, nor does one have to be a woman or gender minority to be protected from adverse employment action due to sex or gender. Most employment discrimination claims based on the plaintiff’s status as white or male are nonsense, but not because the plaintiff cannot show they were a member of a “protected class.”
Agree. We are all members of every protected class. An employee cannot be fired simply for being white any more than another employee can be fired for being black.
That being said, Bosio will have to go through some contortions (or there will have to be facts we don’t know about) to prove that this termination was based on his race, gender, or religion.
This is a case where the conclusion is correct, but the analysis is wrong.
No, we’re not. A protected class is a group of people with an immutable characteristic, and, as a result of that immutable characteristic, have been subject to a history of discrimination. It’s different than whether or not the criteria used by the employer are legal. They are two different steps in the analysis.
That’s absolutely false and an egregious error.
Thankfully:
Crap
Nowhere in your link does it imply that history of discrimination has anything to do with what constitutes protected class.
A quick google search shows a lot of articles contradicting what you claim.
http://www.lawfficespace.com/2013/12/yes-white-males-are-protected-class.html
http://newday.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/03/archie-boss-says-white-men-not-in-protected-class/
Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney Danny Cevallos says, “All of us are members of a protected class, that’s why I’m a little confused by this court filing. The bottom line is this, you can hire and fire people for any reason in the world, unless, and it’s a big unless, it’s based on your membership in a protected class. But white males are members of a class, just like any other race, any other gender and any other religion. It’s not that you have to be a historically disadvantaged member of the class, but that you are treated differently because of your membership in a particular class.”
So I think this is half right. It’s absolutely true that you can’t be fired for being white or straight or cisgender, because race is an impermissible criterion for making employment decisions. But that doesn’t mean that he’s a member of a protected class, which is still necessary for the analysis.
Here’s why. Starting with the sex stereotyping theory created by the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1989, federal courts have started incorporating protected class analysis in reviewing employer actions. There’s some information on that here. https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb0a38daef0511e28578f7ccc38dcbee/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 In practice, what that means is that courts will look at historical levels of discrimination in determining whether a group of people has an immutable characteristic worthy of protection.
Here’s why that matters. Let’s say that an employer decided to give a job to a Black employee because the other candidate was white and he doesn’t like white people. The white candidate could sue because race is an impermissible employment criterion. Now let’s say that the employer uses affirmative action and therefore hires the Black applicant despite both being equally qualified. That’s *not* illegal because African-Americans are a protected class. See here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action
A lot of people, in the context of both housing and employment, miss that it’s really a two step analysis. The first is to determine what the criteria used were and whether they are permissible. The protected class analysis is the second step, because it informs the standard of review.
Hope this clears things up.
Your first source does not say what you say it says, and neither do others. We aren’t even talking about AA hiring practices here so I have no idea why you even bring that up. The fact that discrimination based on sex is less common for men and discrimination based on race is less common for whites does not make them not a “protected class.” This is just wrong. Period. Yes, men or whites are less likely to actually be discriminated against based on those characteristics, but that does not at all mean the same thing. And this furthers a pernicious line of attack used by trolls to attack civil rights, so you should really not go down this road.
https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html#p
“Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-981_4g15.pdf
You can’t just ‘use Affirmative Action’ as a tie breaker (or, as alleged in the above case, to put someone with lesser ‘resume’ qualifications ahead). I think it’s not hard to read between the lines that the above case came out the way it did because of how assiduous UT was in the structuring of their program (kudos to them) and defining a rational basis for race based decision making, and that decisions that are less well rounded would go the other way. What the case *didn’t* say is that “it’s ok, because the plaintiffs’ status as white does not include them in a protected class”.
Oddball and TKDC – Maybe I should rephrase this. I am in no way saying that firing someone for being white is legal – it’s obviously not. But unlike what HappyFunBall said, we are *not* all members of every protected class. That’s just not possible. All of us don’t have disabilities, for example.
Second, I didn’t say that AA allows you to hire someone with a lesser resume – it doesn’t and it shouldn’t. It simply protects the right of an employer to create a policy which favors minority or LGBT candidates *where they are equally qualified.*
Third, we need to differentiate between the definition and application of a protected class. Let me explain what I mean by this. Right, now the bleeding edge of protected class litigation is LGBT people. Courts are finding that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes *because LGBT people* have, throughout history, been discriminated against. That does *not* mean it’s okay to discriminate against straight or cis people. But it does mean that the protected class is being created to protect the immutable characteristics of gender identity and sexual orientation from rampant discrimination.
Now, should an employer turn around and start firing people for being straight, then sure, then straight sexual orientation would then be a protected class. But in practice, the people who the protected class was originally designed to protect tend to get a much higher standard of review. So, for instance, courts (at least in my experience and from the case law I’ve seen) tend to apply a rational basis-type standard for non-minority people, and a higher standard for people who historically have been the subject of discrimination. And you know what? I have no problem with that. Maybe you’ve had different experience in your cases, but that’s what I’ve seen in practical application.
So, if Bosio has actual evidence that the Tigers fired him for being white, then yes, he’d be a member of a protected class on account of his race. But the protected class of race wasn’t created to protect white people – it was created to protect people of color from rampant discrimination. That’s how protected classes form – from a population with an immutable characteristic who have been subject to historical discrimination. The ADEA is a perfect example. Does it protect younger people? Sure. But the targeted protected class is people aged 40-70, and the discrimination they faced.
So I certainly understand what you’re saying, and the distinction between “race” as a protected class, and “African-Americans” as a protected class. I’m a legal aid fair housing lawyer, for goodness’ sake, so protected classes is all I do all day. But the protected class is designed to protect people who are victims of discrimination, and Bosio isn’t one of them.
I don’t disagree with you about the reasons protected classes exist, the characteristics of most cases, or that Bosio was not fired because he was a member of a protected class. But taking your words most generously, your shorthand is incredibly misleading. Something that many non-lawyers have a hard time understanding is that you can be fired for all sorts of stupid or even unfair reasons, but there are these exceptions, and they apply to everyone. Your words make it seem as though you are not protected from being fired because you are white or a man (honestly, I think there may be some legal squishiness with straight or cis).
This also comes up fairly out of nowhere. There are not even claims from Bosio that his race, sex, or anything else played a role in his termination. Noting that he is white, male, straight and cis doesn’t matter, nor does it seem in this case that it would have mattered if any of those things weren’t true. It seems odd to throw that out there, but it is much worse to throw it out there and then strongly insinuate that those characteristics are not protected by law, when at least two of them definitely are.
The bottom line is that if Bosio were fired because he is white, that would be illegal and it would be illegal because it would be a termination based on a protected class. That protected class is race. Bosio is white. Thus, your statement that “Bosio, as a straight, cisgender, white male, doesn’t appear to be a member of a protected class” is wrong. Even using your shorthand method, this is very misleading, because under that analysis, he is not “not” a member of a protected class because of these traits, but rather because his termination had nothing to do with those traits. Again, this would be misread and lead to false conclusions 100 out of 100 times by anyone who did not possess a previous understanding of EEO law.
Agreed, he isn’t one of them, primarily because I don’t see any alleged facts that suggest his whiteness or maleness was at all related to his firing (the Stumpf comment is particularly damning).
That’s sure is a lot of words to inadequately restate:
It also seems to willfully ignore the Supreme Court just deciding to treat protected class litigation for religion rather differently. In the latest session, an aside about the religious beliefs of Christians is important evidence of discrimination to be rectified while bold-faced statements of intent to discriminate against Muslims are somehow not.
A “class” is any group of people that shares a characteristic. If that characteristic is one of age/race/sexual orientation/national original/sex, etc., then the class is protected. There’s literally no such thing as ‘”race” as a protected class’; instead, all the values of the race characteristic form the bases for protected classes: African-Americans, East Asian-Americans, but also Caucasian Americans.
“In the latest session, an aside about the religious beliefs of Christians is important evidence of discrimination to be rectified while bold-faced statements of intent to discriminate against Muslims are somehow not.”
I mean…this is a little disingenuous. The S.C. ruled in the former case that statements combined with past actions (specifically inconsistent outcomes) demonstrated that the commission in Colorado was actually acting out of animus towards a particular religion. The S.C. in the latter case ruled that prejudicial statements by Trump didn’t outweigh that the standards for rational bases for a travel ban had been met. In that sense the rulings are entirely consistent – if you’re going to make prejudicial statements you better have a compelling case that the actions you take aren’t motivated by them.
Not to get too far into it, but the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was so, so narrowly tailored to the facts that its implications have been grossly overstated by both sides.
“the bleeding edge of protected class litigation is LGBT people. Courts are finding that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes *because LGBT people* have, throughout history, been discriminated against.”
I believe protected classes can only be created by legislation. Do you have examples of judge-made law creating new protective classes? There are many states that have passed laws making sexual orientation a protected class. And I believe there have been cases where discrimination against same-sex couples was found to be regular old sex discrimination.
“The ADEA is a perfect example. Does it protect younger people? Sure. But the targeted protected class is people aged 40-70, and the discrimination they faced.”
This is actually wrong also. The ADEA does NOT protect people younger than 40. There has been litigation and it was determined that it provides no protection whatsoever against being fired for being too young.
“should an employer turn around and start firing people for being straight, then sure, then straight sexual orientation would then be a protected class.”
No, no, no. This is so, so wrong. I’m a bit disturbed by these inaccuracies, especially as it seems that you are doubling down and saying that this specific area is “all you do all day”
Sheryl,
I am echoing the other sentiments here. He is a member of many protected classes, but that doesn’t mean he was terminated on the basis of one. Suggesting a class were only protected if it were historically discriminated against would in itself being discriminatory.
I thought this was Americuh!
Um, being fired because you are white is also illegal. Being fired because you are straight (in some states) is also illegal. You are misrepresenting what “protected class” means. It doesn’t mean minority or disadvantaged. It only refers to a set of characteristics, such as race, and applies to all races, all genders, etc.
In my entirely non-legal experience, I find that when someone has legitimate basis for a lawsuit they spend less time bloviating about it, and more time actually filing it.
I’m not really surprised that he threatened to sue. Threatening to sue is easy and carries almost no risk. People threaten to sue all the time with no intention of following through. This may be his way of attempting to save some amount of face in this situation. At the end of the day, I will be absolutely shocked if he actually files suit.
If a black employee calls another the n-word and isn’t fired, does this mean Bosio was fired due to his race? As in, if he was black, he’d still have a job?
nope, it’s all about how the employee reacts and interprets the statement. you’d be fired for creating a hostile working environment for whoever you’re talking to. a black employee could get fired for the same reason if the person they were talking to was made uncomfortable.
Which to me is a pretty good argument to not legislate in regard to feelings. Who decides whose feelings get hurt when and by what? It’s a slippery slope.
In the law, a phrase that is often used is “the reasonable person.” Because if we just didn’t “legislate” feelings (or nuance), we would live in a pretty fucked up world. Nobody really wants to live in a world where outcomes are determined by a computer-program styled set of rules.
Nobody? This is fangraphs!
that’s really not what I was saying, and in an at-will employment state it doesn’t really apply, because the employer doesn’t have to justify why they’re firing someone.
besides, it’s good to be protected against actions that aren’t in a vacuum illegal, but when taken in context make people uncomfortable and unable to work well. there are very good reasons why you can sue an employer for a hostile work environment
its not at-will if you are under contract. it goes to whats in his contract, and that we do not have any idea on.
Well, if you are using these facts, the black person would have to call someone the n-word, not care that it was harmful to that person, and refuse to apologize.
The fact that someone else could have done something and not been fired does not give you a blanket defense. My guess is that the Tigers would not have terminated the contract of Michael Fulmer for doing something like this. It’s almost like not everything is the same. But no, he was not fired because he was white or because he was not black, he was fired because he was an asshole and was doing asshole things and the Tigers didn’t want any part of him.
It doesn’t give a blanket defense, but it does go towards “legitimate expectations”. To frame it in a way that’s actually seen frequently in reality…
If I’m fired because I wear “inappropriate clothing” to work. Then evidence of other employees dressing in similar ways and not being fired would be strong evidence that the “inappropriate clothing” was not the real reason I was fired.
Similarly, if Bosio was fired for “inappropriate language” and other employees use the same language, then that would be evidence that “inappropriate language” was not the real reason for termination.
This of course is only part of the case… the key step is determining which party holds the burden of proof. In at at will employment termination, an employer is allowed to terminate for any non-impermissable purpose. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove 1. what the reason was, AND 2. the reason was impermissable. In a breach of contract case, however, the team needs to prove that the employee breached the contract, thus giving the team a reason to stop paying.
Also, because lawyers are crazy people who can’t stop themselves from sharing their opinions/understanding of facts…
There are a number of Federally protected classes in the US, there are some more classes that are protected on the state level. These protected classes are imposed by statutes (Civil Rights act of 1964/68, Title VIII, Title IX, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment rights act, etc.).
Each class, as it is defined by the relevant statute, is also afforded protections under the law by the same statute. These protections vary; Not every class carries the same legal protections.
The federally protected classes are:
Race, Sex, Age (over 40), National Origin, Religion, Disability, Veterans Status, Disability, (and depending on how in the weeds you want to get, also stuff like Pregnancy, Familial Status, Skin Color, Citizenship, etc.)
Some of these classes contain everybody. Everybody has a “Race”. Everybody has a “Religion (or lack thereof). Everybody has a “National Origin” or “Citizenship” (or lack thereof).
Some of these classes don’t contain everybody. Not everybody is a Veteran. No everybody is disabled. Not everybody is over 40 years old.
My understanding of the application of protected classes in US Federal Employment Discrimination law is that an employer cannot fire (or hire) an employee BECAUSE of her status as a member of one or more protected classes. This includes: Race (regardless of what “race” the employee belongs to), Age (but only if the employee is over 40 years old), Sex (regardless of whether the employee is Male or Female (extra note, Gender =/= Sex)), etc.
The ONLY exception to this rule is if the employer can prove a BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification). I.e. “I’m not hiring this person because she is disabled, but that’s ok because the job in question is to lift and move 100 Lb boxes by hand, and there is no reasonable accommodation we can make which will render this disabled employee as able to do the job as a non-disabled person.” or “I’m not hiring this person because he is black (race) and he doesn’t have any hands (disabled), but thats ok, because the job is for a far east asian hand model.”
In situations such as this, the legal question is which lawsuit would the employer rather face and defend – the lawsuit from the fired employee for wrongful termination or the lawsuit from the other employee(s) for hostile work environment?
If the facts are as what I’ve read, I’d much rather face and defend the wrongful termination lawsuit in this case.
Fun fact: female spider monkeys can see colors but male spider monkeys cannot.
No word on whether this applies to Daniel Stumpf.
I’m so tired of this female spider monkey empowerment thing being foisted on us. If I said male spider monkeys could do something better I’d be shouted down as a myspidermonkeysogynist.
Funner fact: female spider monkeys have enormous clitorises sometimes referred to as pseudo-penises. Male spider monkeys see these clitorises in black and white.
Daniel Stumpf played the tenor saxophone. Little Joe was blowin’ on the slide trombone.
The 3% of male spider monkeys who can find them, anyway.
Funnerest Fact: Tigers GM Al Avila is the father of former Tigers player Alex Avila and one of his first acts as GM was to not offer his son a contract. A year later he did actually sign his son to a one year deal but then 7 months later traded him to the Cubs.
Thanksgiving in the Avila house must be interesting.
Ironically. black spider monkeys cannot see gender.
Should the third sentence in the last paragraph read:
“Whereas Bosio may have a prima facie case for wrongful termination, it does seem as though it would NOT be a winning one. “?
I don’t know all the ins and outs of it, but I’d be shocked if Bosio won this. First off, Stumpf contradicted the “spider monkey” thing. Second, if the club interviewed a lot of people and got all their lawyers involved and he’s abusive as they say, they could fire him for any number of reasons and they knew it. I would be shocked if the contract didn’t include *something* that indicated they could fire him for bad behavior.
Bosio is probably not so much fighting the firing but his reputation. He only started talking about a lawsuit when the monkey thing was leaked. The tigers and bosio never wanted this to come out but then it was leaked. Losing the job is not that big deal for bosio but being labelled as a racist could very well end his career in baseball. Insensitive comment wasn’t nice but being racist is about the worst of all possible insensitive comments at least in baseball (of course anti gay or sexist also is bad but those demographics rarely exist in baseball).
Of course bosio likely did make a racist comment but it makes sense for him to try to wash this white (no pun inteded) because being a racist especially against black is a career killer in baseball nowadays and rightfully so (seems to be less bad against Asians, just ask darvish and full…)
I won’t claim to know how all the steps in how this occurred, but, I am pretty sure that Bosio was the one that went to the media with the “spider monkey” stuff. IIRC, it was in USA Today & that article was the first one that I saw that gave the actual details of the event that led to his termination.
I realise that this is unhelpful, but aren’t “straight” and “cisgender” basically the same thing? I worry about legal cases where there’s too much to disambiguate.
For example, in this case, either Bosio directed “Spider Monkey” to a white player (his account) or left out the “spider” altogether and directed it to a (presumed African American) member of staff.
That, basically, is the crux of the argument. Even legally. Let’s not confuse this.
I’d very much prefer (and trust) to think that Chris Bosio’s version is correct, but … I have my doubts. And no amount of legalese and gender-speak are going to influence me, and by extension, the court. Either way.
No. “Straight” is heterosexual. “Cisgender” means you identify as the gender you were assigned at birth. You can be gay and cisgender.
not exactly the same thing, but close. cisgender means someone who is not transgendered. straight means someone who is not attracted to individuals of the same sex. but some people include “transgendered” in the same category as “non-straight.” like everything around trans stuff, we (as a society) are still trying to come up with definitions that make sense.
Not close. The vast majority of non-straight people are cisgender.
Also, FYI, “transgender” is preferred to “transgendered.” Brief discussion here: http://time.com/3630965/transgender-transgendered/
That’s not what I meant at all.
For a long time mainstream society grouped people in two categories: LGBT and “straight”. So for a long time, “straight” and “trans” were put in opposite categories. So in that world, the concept of cisgender didn’t matter…you were straight or you weren’t.
Introducing cis/trans as a different dimension makes things more complex. Cis-straight is the most visible, cis-not-hetero describing the vast majority of people we might call “gay” or “lesbian”, and the interaction of trans and sexual orientation being more complicated.
I think it’s totally fair to wonder what “cis” means, given that even if you went to college ten years ago your education around this issue was straight vs. LGBT.
Yes, it’s absolutely fair to ask the question. I was just objecting to the qualifier “but close.”
I think there’s a lot of educating to be done around these issues, and in my opinion, saying “straight” and “cis” are close in meaning to each other does a disservice to that education process, given the state of the conversation in 2018. As you allude to, perhaps this conversation looked different (or less nuanced) in the past, but we have these useful categories, so we should take advantage of that and not conflate them in a way that reinforces misconceptions about sexual orientation and gender identity.
I also think the question in this case wasn’t exactly asked in good faith, given the second-to-last sentence of OP’s post, but that’s neither here nor there and has nothing to do with your response, which was a good-faith attempt to explain the distinction. Didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
cis is a new made up word.
I, for one, choose to get all my guidance on sensitive issues of gender identity from someone who goes by “ballz.”
sensetive issues. lol
Thanks for your insight, ballz. Also, that red squiggly means you spelled something wrong and made yourself look dumber than your dumbass opinions already make you look.
All words are made up words. Congratulations on learning how language is created.
All words were once new made up words.
As opposed to “baseball” which is a fundamental characteristic of the universe?
I’m a little unclear as to how Stumpf’s statements on this matter are of any relevance. Apparently, he wasn’t there, and frankly (at least in my personal experience) there’s plenty of nicknames for co-workers that the coworker in question has no knowledge of.
There’s also the fact he’s really only been in the majors since last year, has been right around replacement level so far, and probably wants absolutely nothing to do with a controversy that could endanger his position.
That too, but I kept my comment to things I know for sure rather than drawing conclusions, since that’s about all we offer on this topic, otherwise.
Agreed. Other than possibly a clear conscience by helping Bosio if he was fired inappropriately, I am not sure Stumpf has any incentive to go against his employer in this situation. Unless, it is well known around the team that he’s known as “spider monkey” (& others will attest to it), I would say career preservation means he sticks with the statement that he has never been nicknamed “spider monkey” & that is that.
In fact, getting embroiled in a racial termination controversy would likely end his MLB career.
If Stumpf instead said that his nickname is indeed ‘spider monkey’, it would be extremely relevant, wouldn’t you agree?
The fact that he is unaware of such a nickname is not a definitive proof, but it is a compelling evidence against Bosio’s claims.
Your first statement is true (and could still be irrelevant to the matter at hand) and your second statement simply isn’t true in terms of offering compelling evidence to the existence of this nickname.
Let me break it down.
We know Blasio claimed Stumpf has a nickname of ‘spider monkey’.
The important thing is you need to consider conditional probability.
There are two states of the world.
Either Stumpf has a nickname ‘spider monkey’ (A1) or he does not (A2).
Also either Stumpf knows he has a nickname ‘spider monkey’ (B1) or he does not (B2).
Furthermore, in the incident of interest, either Blasio referred to Stumpf as a ‘spider monkey’ (C1) or he did not (C2).
The important thing we want to figure out is the probability of C1.
P(C1)=P(C1?A1)+P(C1?A2)
We can assume P(C1?A2)=0, i.e., it is impossible that Blasio referred to Stump as a spider monkey when that is not his nickname.
So P(C1) = P(C1?A1)=P(C1|A1)P(A1).
All of this is a long-winded way of saying your belief of P(C1) is affected by your belief of P(A1), which to most people should be self-evident.
Now, how does B2 relate to A1?
P(A1)=P(A1?B1)+P(A1?B2)=P(A1|B1)P(B1)+P(A1|B2)P(B2).
We can safely assume that P(A1|B1)=1 and P(A1|B2)0.
In other words, knowing B2 is true should lower our belief about A1 being true, which in turn should lower our belief about C1 being true.
You can stop at A2… Stumpf said he has never been called spider monkey by anyone. Case closed.
It’s not compelling evidence but from a Bayesian perspective it moves the needle quite a lot.
seen this a thousand times. attorneys get lost and cant see the forrest for the trees a lot times. get too bogged down into details and most of them don’t matter. All this gender sh** is irrelevant, so is race argument of this. Just goes to who you said it too and if that person was offended and you created a hostile work environment….period. The only time the race and gender get involved is with a jury and they pick based off of emotion. Doesn’t matter the race. It’s going to come down to a he said she said unless it was on tape and recorded.
they will settle out of court because no one can prove what he did was wrong and if he even said it…maybe he is telling the truth, noone knows. No one will win this case, it will be settled and not go to trial…. book it.
For example, when i’m on an elevator at work and its just me, and a female gets on the elevator coming off another floor on our way down, i immediatly press the next floor below where she got on and change elevators. All it takes is that won female to say i said something i didn’t and i’m fired. he said she said, will settle out of court.
Once again proving that people who say “females” instead of “women” are NEVER to be listened to.
lol, what the hell is the difference? male, men, man,boy, women, girl, lady , female. tomato tomato. People are way too sensitivte these days. Even just 10 years ago you would’ve been laughed out of the room for that comment. Times have changed.
I would have gone with someone making the “one/won” homophone mistake as being the biggest indicator of this post’s quality, but that’s a good general litmus test.
I do not agree with Guru’s grammar, but I think his prediction of an out of court settlement is accurate. Even if you accept the Tiger’s claims against Bosio, I think they will have difficulty proving it is a firable offense under his contract. The tigers and MLB are invoking a zero tolerance policy against Bosio that has apparently never been used. And millions of us witnessed a racist action by Juri Gurriel in the world series without terminating his contract. He was not fired, and even allowed to continue playing in the World Series!
Additionally, my guess is that you can find many instances of racially insensitive comments made in MLB clubhouses over the last year that did not result in zero tolerance termination of contract. Even the music played in any clubhouse will have insensitive words that could be deemed racist or sexist in violation of the “zero tolerance policy.”
In the end, I think neither MLB nor Bosio will want this played out in court, and the relatively small amount it will take to settle will be worth it for both sides.
Will a Question With an Obvious Answer Appear on Fangraphs Next Week?
So without getting all lawyerly, the basic rule is don’t refer to a guy as a monkey unless you are certain he doesn’t think of himself as resembling a monkey. Forward, Comrades.
I’m white and my grandfather use to call me a monkey. Nothing to do about color obviously. He didn’t think I was too bright and I was skinny. Never did figure out what he meant exactly. Sometimes he called me fat head instead, or a pip when I did dumb stuff
I think it can be used racially or not racially. No idea which way he meant it.
In the past, I think a lot of children (African American & Caucasian) were called monkeys..particularly when they were little kids & typically ran around & climbed all over things like, well, a monkey. Maybe they still are, I don’t know. Obviously, this ends (or should) as they get older & become teenagers/adults.
I will also add that for at least 35 years now, it has been extremely problematic to call an adult African American a “monkey”. It’s a derogatory term. My first remembrance of this was Howard Cosell getting fired from MNF for calling a player a “little monkey”. That was when I was a young teenager in the early-mid 1980s & was basically the end of his career. I think anyone claiming they didn’t realize “monkey” can be a derogatory term for an adult AA is being disingenuous, at best.
I doubt my kids know what a monkey is referring to. Nobody says it anymore, certainly not anyone my family hangs around, and the middle class area we live in is pretty liberal. Plus, racial slurs in general just aren’t nearly as common.
Heck, I was watching one of those old Dean Martin roasts, and one of the comedians used the word “raccoon” as a slur. I could kind of tell from the context what it meant, but I had to ask my mom what it specifically meant.
I think assuming subsequent generations “know” something that we recognize as a racial slur is insulting might not be entirely fair, especially if the children grow up pretty sheltered.
I take it you’ve never seen Forrest Gump? Seriously, if your children are adults and don’t know that “monkey” is a racial slur, might I suggest you encourage your children to read more books? It’s not virtuous to be completely ignorant of the past.
how far back do you want to go with the “past”. Werent we all monkeys at one time, or is that too far back in the “past” for this argument?
What a catarrhine.