[legend]

Sounds to me like ESPN jumped at the chance to put a bullet in Reynolds becuase of his "meltdown" about the A-Rod coverage and when a co-worker conveniently stepped forward with some allegation concerning a hug, they got rid of Reynolds. From what I have seen Reynolds is a really decent guy who has done a lot for Little League and charity, and I'm not buying any of this sexual harassment stuff. As a supervisor, I have had to deal with sexual harassment claims, and they are a nightmare for management, but each one has to be thoroughly investigated and then a decision rendered. Looks like ESPN just was waiting for anything on Reynolds so they could pull the trigger.
To replace a man accused of sexual harassment with a man who has been "convicted" of it tells me that ESPN was on a vendetta. Until I am offered proof otherwise. I side with Reynolds here.

[EmpireWF]

Originally Posted by legend

To replace a man accused of sexual harassment with a man who has been "convicted" of it tells me that ESPN was on a vendetta. Until I am offered proof otherwise. I side with Reynolds here.

Excellent point there Legend. Phillips while GM of the Mets was a known chaser of the skirt and if memory serves correctly, the Mets even had to settle one lawsuit out of court for the guy.

[candlejack]

OMG! What the hell is ESPN doing? Firing Harold for giving a co-worker a hug? I give me female co-workers hugs all the time, I have never been accused of harassment. They should have just suspended him until a full investigation could be conducted, unless they have a zero-tolerance policy in affect. If that is the case, then Harold may be jost SOL.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by legend

Sounds to me like ESPN jumped at the chance to put a bullet in Reynolds becuase of his "meltdown" about the A-Rod coverage and when a co-worker conveniently stepped forward with some allegation concerning a hug, they got rid of Reynolds. From what I have seen Reynolds is a really decent guy who has done a lot for Little League and charity, and I'm not buying any of this sexual harassment stuff. As a supervisor, I have had to deal with sexual harassment claims, and they are a nightmare for management, but each one has to be thoroughly investigated and then a decision rendered. Looks like ESPN just was waiting for anything on Reynolds so they could pull the trigger.
To replace a man accused of sexual harassment with a man who has been "convicted" of it tells me that ESPN was on a vendetta. Until I am offered proof otherwise. I side with Reynolds here.

Yep...they did not seem willing to let process take its course...and I really am not buying its all over a "hug"...at best, at best...that might be grounds for sensitivity counseling...or some new PC thing like that...they were out to get the guy.

[ThePundit]

We really don't know what else Reynolds did if he and if there was a pattern. From what I understand, there were other incidents and ESPN doesn't fire anybody unless they have things well documented. I was in the personnel business for 15 years and in big companies, it's virtually impossible to fire someone unless you have documented proof that they did something wrong.

Also, when you run a business, someone doesn't need to be "convicted" of something to get rid of him. A business or public opinion is not a court of law.

For example, Steve Phillips admitted he behaved inapporpriately and the Mets had to pay a big time settlement. Wilpon would have been more than justified to fire him since he cost the Mets all that money.