24 replies to this topic

[erynthered]

http://espn.go.com/n...ett-favre-texts

This should be interesting.


Manhattan Supreme Court judge in early April refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the New York Jets and Favre by two massage therapists.Christina Scavo and Shannon O'Toole contend they were subjected to sexual harassment and job discrimination. They are seeking unspecified damages from Favre, the Jets and a team massage coordinator.

They say they lost their part-time jobs with the Jets after complaining about sexually suggestive text messages from the veteran quarterback while he was with the team in 2008.

The Jets say the lawsuit is "completely without merit." They say they are looking forward to defending themselves in court. A message left with Favre's lawyer was not immediately returned.

.vote-module {    margin: 10px;}

[Captain Hindsight]

She was pretty hot

[erynthered]

Captain Hindsight, on 01 May 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

She was pretty hot

Yup, FSU alum. Jenn Sterger.

http://susanshan.com...10/sterger1.jpg

[taC giB ehT]

Wait, you can sue for sexual discrimination now because you were hired to be a hot female masseuse?

[Cheddar's Dad]

Part time jobs? How much could those jobs have been worth and how will they prove their loss of jobs was connected with the alleged harassment? Is it their contention they lost their jobs because they refused Favre's advances? Sounds like a difficult case to make. But, the Jets should try a settlement. Offer them $200,000. each. If they refuse, it's because this suit is about money and not about harassment.

These gals see an opportunity here to gain what they could not through hard work in my opinion. In this age, when women drop the F bomb as much as men, and stay up late watching Sex In The City, it's hard to imagine them as simple minded innocents who mistakenly look a job where they did not know they would meet testosterone driven young male studs, some with questionable morals or ethics.

[erynthered]

Cheddar, on 01 May 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Part time jobs? How much could those jobs have been worth and how will they prove their loss of jobs was connected with the alleged harassment? Is it their contention they lost their jobs because they refused Favre's advances? Sounds like a difficult case to make. But, the Jets should try a settlement. Offer them $200,000. each. If they refuse, it's because this suit is about money and not about harassment.

These gals see an opportunity here to gain what they could not through hard work in my opinion. In this age, when women drop the F bomb as much as men, and stay up late watching Sex In The City, it's hard to imagine them as simple minded innocents who mistakenly look a job where they did not know they would meet testosterone driven young male studs, some with questionable morals or ethics.

I would suspect if they have proof of this:
They say they lost their part-time jobs with the Jets after complaining about sexually suggestive text messages from the veteran quarterback while he was with the team in 2008.

Thats why the judge is moving this case forward.  I remember when this all opened up, she said that she got a picture/text from Farve of his dick.

[marauderswr80]

Just get the texts from the phone company!

[tennesseeboy]

If they have text messages and photos, and if there was a pattern of harassment, I would not want to be defebdant.  assuming Favredoesn't want to the pictures of his pecker going to through the internet again, and the Jets want to put this behind them, I suspect there will be a very good settlement prior to a trial.

[Peter]

I wonder if Mrs. Favre asked the judge to force Brett to testify.

Edited by Peter, 01 May 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Cheddar's Dad]

tennesseeboy, on 01 May 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

If they have text messages and photos, and if there was a pattern of harassment, I would not want to be defebdant.  assuming Favredoesn't want to the pictures of his pecker going to through the internet again, and the Jets want to put this behind them, I suspect there will be a very good settlement prior to a trial.

Lets assume Favre sent the pics. How are the Jets involved? Did these women get canned immediately after they complained about the pics. Could Jets management really be that stupid? Never mind. They traded for Tebow. Nuff said.

[Zona]

Just because the Judge said there will be a trial, it doesn't mean Favre has to testify. The tattered Constitution still gives him the right to NOT testify...

[thepizzaking]

Zona, on 01 May 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Just because the Judge said there will be a trial, it doesn't mean Favre has to testify. The tattered Constitution still gives him the right to NOT testify...

Sort of, but as this is a civil suit, should Favre choose not to testify the plaintiffs can argue that this silence is evidence of his wrongdoing.  In a criminal trial that wouldn't be the case.  

As for the question as to why the jets would be liable for Favre's indiscretions, aside from the wrongful termination aspect they can likely fashion a pretty legitimate argument that as a jets employee they are liable for his actions.

[papazoid]

but will the evidence "stand up" in court ?

[billsfanmiami(oh)]

Zing!

[thepizzaking]

papazoid, on 01 May 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

but will the evidence "stand up" in court ?

I'm not sure if you're asking me, but if you were, yes.  

I'll try to explain.  In a criminal trial, a defendant can invoke his 5th amendment right to silence.  If he does this, a prosecutor MAY NOT ask the jury to infer from his silence that he is guilty.  The jury will be instructed that his silence has no bearing on the case, and they must come to a verdict based on any other evidence admitted into the trial.

In a civil trial, the opposite is true.  What that means is, Favre may choose not to testify, or if he does, invoke the 5th amendment to not answer questions that the plaintiff's attorney may ask.  In this case however, the plaintiff's attorney IS allowed to ask the jury to infer wrongdoing based on that.  

Basically, in a criminal trial, if the prosecutor says "Did you shoot the victim", and the defendant invokes the 5th, then the jury is not allowed to consider that as evidence of whether or not he did.  They must use other evidence brought into the trial (e.g., fingerprints, dna, bla bla).

In a civil trial, if the plaintiff's attorney says "Did you send a picture of your penis to my client without her permission", and Favre invokes the 5th, then the jury IS allowed to take his silence as evidence that he may have done so.  Even if he doesn't take the stand under the idea of the 5th amendment, the plaintiff's attorney can essentially say "look, he won't even get up here to dispute our facts personally, something's fishy here."

Edited by thepizzaking, 01 May 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Chandemonium]

thepizzaking, on 01 May 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

I'm not sure if you're asking me, but if you were, yes.  

I'll try to explain.  In a criminal trial, a defendant can invoke his 5th amendment right to silence.  If he does this, a prosecutor MAY NOT ask the jury to infer from his silence that he is guilty.  The jury will be instructed that his silence has no bearing on the case, and they must come to a verdict based on any other evidence admitted into the trial.

In a civil trial, the opposite is true.  What that means is, Favre may choose not to testify, or if he does, invoke the 5th amendment to not answer questions that the plaintiff's attorney may ask.  In this case however, the plaintiff's attorney IS allowed to ask the jury to infer wrongdoing based on that.  

Basically, in a criminal trial, if the prosecutor says "Did you shoot the victim", and the defendant invokes the 5th, then the jury is not allowed to consider that as evidence of whether or not he did.  They must use other evidence brought into the trial (e.g., fingerprints, dna, bla bla).

In a civil trial, if the plaintiff's attorney says "Did you send a picture of your penis to my client without her permission", and Favre invokes the 5th, then the jury IS allowed to take his silence as evidence that he may have done so.  Even if he doesn't take the stand under the idea of the 5th amendment, the plaintiff's attorney can essentially say "look, he won't even get up here to dispute our facts personally, something's fishy here."

This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen.

[Hopeful]

Cheddar, on 01 May 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Lets assume Favre sent the pics. How are the Jets involved? Did these women get canned immediately after they complained about the pics. Could Jets management really be that stupid? Never mind. They traded for Tebow. Nuff said.

That would be it, CD.  

Exactly.

They were the organization whose S&C coach was lining players up on the sidelines to take out the gunner, and then said "oh, we knew nothing about it at all!", weren't they?

Bunch of douches

[thepizzaking]

Chandemonium, on 01 May 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen.

I'm in the middle of finals for law school and I 100% missed that obvious joke!  Well, at least someone is better for it if they didn't know that difference before!

[Hopeful]

Chandemonium, on 01 May 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

This is the longest response to a boner joke I've ever seen.

It must have been hard to write.  He probably wrote it in spurts.

[billsrcursed]

Hopeful, on 01 May 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

It must have been hard to write.  He probably wrote it in spurts.

Gross.

Funny, but gross.