NFL/NBA now have a Donald Sterling problem with Gayle Benson (1 Viewer)

Since when is calling a black man 'black' racist? Did she say "I hate you because you are black"? She said she hates him and he is black and a son of a *****, apparently. We don't know if he was rude to her constantly or anything for her to think he's a son of a *****. We don't know if he has ties to Rita and let her in on things that happen in Tom's house. We don't know anything, pretty much, except she said he was black, which he is, and that he is a son of a *****, which we don't know for sure what provoked that. Where is the proof that just being black is what led her to believe that he is a sob? Maybe he didn't like her either and wasn't very nice to her.

I am not saying she's not a racist because I haven't the faintest ******* clue one way or another, but this statement does nothing to change my mind on the subject without more context clues. We love to jump to conclusions about **** we have no idea about and I guess my point is stop doing that. This is not even close to Donald Sterling.
 
Here's the problem-
You can't unhear the allegation.

If you walk in a crowded room and I yell to you "hey, are you still beating your wife?" It doesn't matter if it's untrue, people are going to wonder and some will outright believe that you beat your wife.

The source is relevant. In this case, its a longtime assistant. Pretty credible.
This is an nfl team. Lots of black players.

This is real bad PR for gayle imo. Forget the legal side. It's just real bad PR.

And that's not particularly good for our saints.

But at this moment, she isn't the owner. And if these claims are true, she'll never get ownership.
The claims do not involve any Saints employees, just the wife. And that is bad, but this can be stopped before it becomes like the Sterling fiasco.
 
The part about air conditioning in West Virginia makes me more likely to question the rest. I'm sure others from that part of the country can chime in but I lived in Ohio for 4 years and few had air conditioning at all.
 
There's no Donald Sterling problem unless this guy has a recording or some actual proof.

And Sterling's issue was his overall systemic viewpoint towards African Americans and how his "side piece" should act in public.

This sounds, at the surface, less racist and more just angry at a particular person.

I've said many stupid things while angry. It's not a summation of my world view.
 
Since when is calling a black man 'black' racist? Did she say "I hate you because you are black"? She said she hates him and he is black and a son of a *****, apparently. We don't know if he was rude to her constantly or anything for her to think he's a son of a *****. We don't know if he has ties to Rita and let her in on things that happen in Tom's house. We don't know anything, pretty much, except she said he was black, which he is, and that he is a son of a *****, which we don't know for sure what provoked that. Where is the proof that just being black is what led her to believe that he is a sob? Maybe he didn't like her either and wasn't very nice to her.

I am not saying she's not a racist because I haven't the faintest ******* clue one way or another, but this statement does nothing to change my mind on the subject without more context clues. We love to jump to conclusions about **** we have no idea about and I guess my point is stop doing that. This is not even close to Donald Sterling.

Including "black" in the comment implies that it has something to do with or adds to her dislike of him.

Honestly I really see this as a non-issue. He-said, she said. Whether she really said it or not is a moot point.
 
Since when is calling a black man 'black' racist? Did she say "I hate you because you are black"? She said she hates him and he is black and a son of a *****, apparently. We don't know if he was rude to her constantly or anything for her to think he's a son of a *****. We don't know if he has ties to Rita and let her in on things that happen in Tom's house. We don't know anything, pretty much, except she said he was black, which he is, and that he is a son of a *****, which we don't know for sure what provoked that. Where is the proof that just being black is what led her to believe that he is a sob? Maybe he didn't like her either and wasn't very nice to her.

I am not saying she's not a racist because I haven't the faintest ******* clue one way or another, but this statement does nothing to change my mind on the subject without more context clues. We love to jump to conclusions about **** we have no idea about and I guess my point is stop doing that. This is not even close to Donald Sterling.

Basically when it is used as an adjective describing an insult. Remember when John Calipari called a reporter a "Mexican idiot"? The racial makeup of the reporter wasn't a part of him being an idiot, but to include it in the insult infers that he was an idiot due largely to said racial makeup. It may not be intended that way, but it is inherently racist in its practice.
 
Sorry, this seems fishy. The assistant files a wage claim in November alleging he was owed back wages. So far as I understand, no allegations of racism made then. Any labor lawyer worth his salt suing the saints back then presumably would have vetted his case for all actionable claims. Why are no claims made then?

So the Saints file to have the suit dismissed alleging it is covered by an arbitration clause. It sounds like the case might be thrown out of court and into arbitration, where no plaintiff wants to be.

Wait says the lawyer, I have an idea, lets convert it to a discrimination claim and keep it in federal court. What do you got, he asks his client. Well she made me stay in a room that wasnt nice once.

Not enough for a discrimination claim. What if we say she called me a black sob? Then it make it sound like my un-airconditioned room was like slave quarters and will really make them look bad.

I have seen many discrimination claims. Some have merit, some are contrived because when the race card is played, just the innuendo makes it hard to defend.

Its certainly possible Gayle made these comments. I was not there, I don't know her. I dont know the plaintiff.

But I do know law and what due diligence goes into filing a law suit. And if I read the article correctly, this suit was first filed in November and the new suit came after motions to dismiss the first on an arbitration clause.

If a super labor lawyer has a valid discrimination claim, why did it take him three months to amend? Why after the motion to dismiss?

I hope for his sake he has credible and independent witnesses to back this up and its not just the word of the plaintiff. If Gayle is a racist there should be lots of evidence of her using racial insults, not just the claims of a disgruntled worker.

If there is credible evidence she mistreats employees on the basis of their race, then she is not fit to be the owner of the Saints.

Lets see how it plays out. First question up is why does this claim only come after the first suit was being challenged on an arbitration clause. The second question is can they show some pattern of discrimination or is it just that Gayle did not like this guy?



Lawsuit: Ex-Tom Benson assistant claims he was racially harassed by wife Gayle, treated 'with disdain and disrespect' | The Advocate


On its face it sounds like racial allegations were thrown in as afterthought because they were mad saints were claiming arbitration clause. Did it just dawn on the plaintiff and the attorney this week that the plaintiff was the victim of a racist employer?

Everyone should read this post carefully.
 
Since when is calling a black man 'black' racist? Did she say "I hate you because you are black"? She said she hates him and he is black and a son of a *****, apparently. We don't know if he was rude to her constantly or anything for her to think he's a son of a *****. We don't know if he has ties to Rita and let her in on things that happen in Tom's house. We don't know anything, pretty much, except she said he was black, which he is, and that he is a son of a *****, which we don't know for sure what provoked that. Where is the proof that just being black is what led her to believe that he is a sob? Maybe he didn't like her either and wasn't very nice to her.

I am not saying she's not a racist because I haven't the faintest ******* clue one way or another, but this statement does nothing to change my mind on the subject without more context clues. We love to jump to conclusions about **** we have no idea about and I guess my point is stop doing that. This is not even close to Donald Sterling.

I agree with you. And name one person in this world that don't do that? People these days take everything out of context. And people lose their jobs for no reason. When political correctness attacks.
 
The part about air conditioning in West Virginia makes me more likely to question the rest. I'm sure others from that part of the country can chime in but I lived in Ohio for 4 years and few had air conditioning at all.

It's 50 degrees in the summer up there. So having air condition is unlikely.
 
I read the lawsuit.

Interesting that everything happened in 2014. Also, in Jan of that year he had Tom sign that "termination" contract.

Did he pull a fast one on Tom? Was he the leak to Rita, et al?

At one point the lawsuit mentions Gayle aggressively pointing at him, while accusing him of feeding the 3 R's info. Aww.... Aggressively pointed at...

Not sure what to think of all this, but 2014 (and 2015) was a bad year for the Benson's.
 
But at this moment, she isn't the owner. And if these claims are true, she'll never get ownership.
The claims do not involve any Saints employees, just the wife. And that is bad, but this can be stopped before it becomes like the Sterling fiasco.

Tom benson wants his wife to take over ownership after he dies. Everyone knows this. If he were to go today, she is in contention to be the owner. The league might actually step in to make some political hay out of this and throw the whole thing into question. Rita will pounce on it for certain.

It's not good
 
Everyone should read this post carefully.

Well AARP, I cant find my post your quoted now. It mysteriously disappeared. Based on EE board discussions of late, I am thinking Illuminati behind my post vanishing, this lawsuit against the saints and Palin endorsing Trump. No proof, but I am nevertheless certain about this. :covri:
 
Well AARP, I cant find my post your quoted now. It mysteriously disappeared. Based on EE board discussions of late, I am thinking Illuminati behind my post vanishing, this lawsuit against the saints and Palin endorsing Trump. No proof, but I am nevertheless certain about this. :covri:

Page 4, Post 55. I'm working on a tablet, so I was afraid that I inadvertently erased it--but it's still there. There must have been a raid on those Illuminati fellers.
 
Page 4, Post 55. I'm working on a tablet, so I was afraid that I inadvertently erased it--but it's still there. There must have been a raid on those Illuminati fellers.

Yes, I can see it, before I could not. Strange. Now I am thinking Dan in Lafayette (who is probably in the Illuminati).
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom