For wrongful termination.

Not only should you get your contract money, you should sue for an additional 2 or 3 million.

Here's why. What did you say that's wrong?

You said she looked live a host doing a porn awards show.

Go before a judge and ask why that's a bad thing to say. Because then they'll have to argue that a legal profession is bad. Then they are the prejudiced ones. That argument won't hold up for them. You'll win.

Why is this so far fetched?

It's not.

The Julie's of the world, while claiming Mac is sexist for this, is actually putting down the good women of the porn industry. A legal industry. They're just doing a job. She's hating on those women by claiming it's an insult. Ya know what, maybe it's a compliment. That's what a lawyer would say in court.

Like I said earlier, if he said she looked like a Doctor, nobody would be mad. What he said is the exact same thing as saying she looked like a Doctor.

Mac would win in court. No doubt in my mind.

It's all about how the discipline was different with Levine.

It's all about how the discipline was different with Levine.

Not even remotely comparable.

One was a direct attack on a African american female, the other was a shared dumb political meme.

One was a direct attack on a African american female, the other was a shared dumb political meme.

Neither of us are lawyers, but I doubt you could win in court with the "The sexist tweet was about a white woman" defense especially when the much more logical explanation is Mac was expensive to a company who is financially struggling.

For a wrongful termination claim to have legs, he must have been discriminated for a prohibited reason- ie sex, race, age, etc. He was terminated for none of those. His termination was directly related to an inappropriate tweet. His only cause of action is breach of contract.

If the Score was smart, they either fired him based on a specific violation of his contract or paid him a severance and got a signed release.

For a wrongful termination claim to have legs, he must have been discriminated for a prohibited reason- ie sex, race, age, etc. He was terminated for none of those. His termination was directly related to an inappropriate tweet. His only cause of action is breach of contract.

If the Score was smart, they either fired him based on a specific violation of his contract or paid him a severance and got a signed release.

But you had an almost exact same scenario play out like 2 weeks before where an employee wasn’t fired for something arguably worse . How does wrongful termination not cover that ? Does Mr Reinsdorf going to bat for you make that much of a difference ?

My point is why can they determine it was an inappropriate tweet. That's subjective. Go before a judge and say it was a compliment. Why can't it be considered a compliment? Why?

Once again, you can't just say it's not a compliment because it's about porn, you hate porn ladies and you think porn is bad. That's not a good argument. Once again, it's a legal profession.

I don't care what you think. I think if you go before a judge, in a court of law, Mac would win.

People get fired all the time for subjective reasons. We have at will employment laws. Now in Mac’s case, he has a contract, which supersedes contract law. That is his only legit claim.

People get fired all the time for subjective reasons. We have at will employment laws. Now in Mac’s case, he has a contract, which supersedes contract law. That is his only legit claim.

Be that as it may, Entercom has to prove Mac's tweet was disparaging, which they can, because Mac deleted it. He compounded his original mistake. If he hadn't deleted it, Beardown's point could have legitimacy.

I don't think Mac gets paid and a suit would be thrown out quickly.

Be that as it may, Entercom has to prove Mac's tweet was disparaging, which they can, because Mac deleted it. He compounded his original mistake. If he hadn't deleted it, Beardown's point could have legitimacy.

I don't think Mac gets paid and a suit would be thrown out quickly.