Pure Speculation - Could This Be Why

First, let me restate. I have no inside info on the speculative question I will ask at the end of this post. This is pure speculation.



Background. I have on occasion wondered what ever became of Jaime Hill. I had never heard of him landing a job anywhere. Higgins got one. Weber got one. Jaime Hill did not get one.



So, I searched the Internet. I saw an announcement that he was just hired a month or two ago as DC for Portland State. That seems to be his first coaching job since leaving BYU.



Since Higgins and Weber proved that even the most unpopular BYU coaches are readily hire able elsewhere, the SPECULATION begins.



I read the Bronco Mendenhall comments about the firing. He was asked to respond to comments Hill made that he was being SINGLED OUT as being responsible for the poor start to the 2010 season. Bronco said that this was not true and that there was more to it than that.



Hill is African American. A minority that is a PROTECTED CLASS. Singled Out is code word for DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.



Mendenhall further went on to say that Hill was given the opportunity to resign or be fired. He was not given an opportunity to stay on as a position coach. In fact, a young, white male named Poppinga was given a position coach job to fill the opening created by the firing of Hill. Of course choosing a young white male - the only totally unprotected class - over a more experienced black male is a lightening rod for a discrimination lawsuit.



SPECULATION: Hill was therefore given a generous severance settlement covering the rest of that season plus 2011 and most, if not all, of 2012. It was probably contingent on whether he found a job sooner. He probably chose to not work and rode the severance check path to the last drop.



This may be part or all of why Doman could not be offered a position coach slot. If BYU gave another young white guy what they were not willing to give the older black guy - new lightening rod for a lawsuit.



STRETCHING it further. Perhaps popular young white male Cahoon was replaced by an African American to establish racial balance in the staff.



And we already knew that young white male Dupaix was swapped out to make Vai Sikahema happy.



What do you think?



Speculate Away.

Upon the initial reading of your speculation to me it appears so far fetched that it shouldn't be given it a second look.



But I got to thinking.... hmmmm..... sometime the most far-fetched ideas end up being correct and sometimes (more often than not) they end up just being far-fetched a idea.



Having said that I do think you may be on top something with Hill getting a good severance pay and he just sat on that until he was ready to start coaching again... I do think you are correct saying that Holliday was hired to bring cultural and racial diversity.... but I think that is only part of the reason.



My specualtion is that the major reason Bronco brought Anae back and Atuaia's was hired was to return to a maintaining a strangle hold on the Hawaiian islands and compete with Chow for those recruits. Although I think chow will do horribly as a HC at Hawaii he will get a lot of the talent because he is a legend there (from what I hear). So we brought back two guys who are also legendary in Hawaii to cancel out Chow.



As far as Vai is concerned I think Bronco doesn't give a crap what Vai says or thinks, but Tom Holmoe may.... I personally don't want to believe that Vai had something to do with Atuaia being hired on.... but I think I may that be the truth. There is my speculation!

Some of what you say sounds reasonable, including the seveance pay incentive not to find work, but who knows? Question: Is Holliday part African American? I somewhat doubt that Dupaix and Cahoon were released for the purpose of racial balance. Also, I do not care about Vai anymore, who I have come to regard as a racist himself. I used to be all for him, but he has written too many essays about victim-hood in a fictitious "them vs us" type of scenario. His disloyalty to BYU was over the top for me.

Having said that, I do think there is some possibility for a desire to win back some of the Poly recruiting connections from HI as well as from the Poly communinties in UT and CA.

IMO Anae, Atuaia, Holliday (part Poly/A.A.) - were not just hired for the Poly connection to HI - it is for across the country.They are just looking to expand their geographic footprint. Atuaia will definitely have HI/American Samoa on the radar, but Anae and Holliday will be pursuing AZ, CA, TX, etc. Just look at most recent recruits (have between 30-35% Poly players) with several more targeted for OL/DL/LB.

Holiday is part Samoan, part AA.



Interesting string of unverifiable plausibilities. The lawsuit is the least plausible. Bronco didn't replace Hill with a new DC hire, he did with himself--a job he has apmaintained to date. D performance with Hill and after Hill are some very strong evidences that performance was the issue.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Holiday is part Samoan, part AA.



Interesting string of unverifiable plausibilities. The lawsuit is the least plausible. Bronco didn't replace Hill with a new DC hire, he did with himself--a job he has apmaintained to date. D performance with Hill and after Hill are some very strong evidences that performance was the issue.

You missed the point. And I am not saying that I think any racism was actually involved. I actually do not. I am just telling you how an HR Department responds when a protected minority - in this case publicly - claims to have been singled out. Anyone can claim discrimination if they are a protected class - even if the claim is baseless. You can CLAIM anything and file a suit. It is expensive to defend and you never know which way a jury will go. So HR goes into lawsuit avoidance mode even when they feel the claim is baseless.



But the point you missed in the Doman parallel was that precedent was set when Hill was not given an option to take a demotion. If they extended such an option in a similar circumstance to a young white guy - Doman - it potentially reopens how Hill was handled.



I think this HR issue came up late in the decision process which is why it seemed like Doman had the option to stay if he wanted to and then suddenly, with no explanation, he had a two-year severance just like Hill got.



All the stuff about Atuaia was TIC. And, as I said, the Cahoon part was a stretch. But I think the Doman part is very plausible.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Then again, he could have just taken a couple of years off just like he did from 1998-2000 after he got a separation bonus from the 49ers.



Doesn't sound as sneaky or divisive, but it's the simpler explanation.

snoscythe wrote:
Then again, he could have just taken a couple of years off just like he did from 1998-2000 after he got a separation bonus from the 49ers.



Doesn't sound as sneaky or divisive, but it's the simpler explanation.

I am not saying Hill did anything other than collect his severance pay. I am telling you what HR Departments do every time a person is let go or demoted. They check to see if the factors involved are consistent with factors in previous decisions and if circumstances were similar but decision was diffeterent, what POTENTIAL risks would be created. The best defense against discrimination CLAIMS is to show that any and all decisions are consistent regardless of age, sex, race, religion, etc.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I've studied sociology of race at the PhD level, and my thoughts are these: First and formost, he was fired due to on-field performance, plain and simple. Second, like it or not, people tend to show subtle favoritisms toward people who are like themselves, which although may bring a sense of comfort through familiarity, is also socially limiting. Seehttp://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415. When applying this to the football team, I think Bronco really wanted to expand some recruitment strategies, and thus we see Atuaia, Anae, and Holliday on the staff. The result, whether we like it or not, is that players of color do feel more comfortable among coaches/recruiters of color. And here's the part that no one likes to admit either, we all tend to show some degree of added comfort and preference toward like-race individuals--whether through work relationships, friends, acquaintanceships, etc...

Well how considerate of you to speak for everyone. Just remember if Anae and Bronco were that concerned about race,Arod wouldn't have been there first choice for receiver coach.

A couple of years ago the company I was with decided to fire their sales and marketing teams because they wanted to go in "a different direction." I was part of the marketing team and found myself unemployed despite increasing results more than two fold.



One of the sales people laid off was a an African American woman. We all got a severence package, but she got a lot more...a lot more.



At the time of my layoff I already knew they were planning to rehire my position. Saw the job description and everything. So, I consulted a lawyer on the issue. Here's how the conversation went:



Lawyer: Are you black?

Me: No

Lawyer: Are you hispanic?

Me: No

Lawyer: Are you Asian?

Me: No

Lawyer: You're white?

Me: Yes

Lawyer: So, you're a white, middle-class male?

Me: Yes

Lawyer: Sorry, no case.

Me: What...but they're rehiring for my role. Same qualifications and I exceeded every number they asked of me...

Lawyer: Sorry. If you were black, hispanic, or asian you could sue and more than likely win.

Me: That sucks...

Lawyer: Yes, it does.



I learned later the African American female that was fired threatened a lawsuit, so they gave her more money.



Bib's theory is probably spot on. Hill was bitter. Hill knew BYU/Church has an image problem when it come to racism and a lawsuit could make BYU look very bad. I'm sure BYU gave him a decent package, and it's more than likely Hill asked for more or else...

Gunk wrote:
A couple of years ago the company I was with decided to fire their sales and marketing teams because they wanted to go in "a different direction." I was part of the marketing team and found myself unemployed despite increasing results more than two fold.



One of the sales people laid off was a an African American woman. We all got a severence package, but she got a lot more...a lot more.



At the time of my layoff I already knew they were planning to rehire my position. Saw the job description and everything. So, I consulted a lawyer on the issue. Here's how the conversation went:



Lawyer: Are you black?

Me: No

Lawyer: Are you hispanic?

Me: No

Lawyer: Are you Asian?

Me: No

Lawyer: You're white?

Me: Yes

Lawyer: So, you're a white, middle-class male?

Me: Yes

Lawyer: Sorry, no case.

Me: What...but they're rehiring for my role. Same qualifications and I exceeded every number they asked of me...

Lawyer: Sorry. If you were black, hispanic, or asian you could sue and more than likely win.

Me: That sucks...

Lawyer: Yes, it does.



I learned later the African American female that was fired threatened a lawsuit, so they gave her more money.



Bib's theory is probably spot on. Hill was bitter. Hill knew BYU/Church has an image problem when it come to racism and a lawsuit could make BYU look very bad. I'm sure BYU gave him a decent package, and it's more than likely Hill asked for more or else...

This is a typical employment discussion in HR and with employment lawyers. Obviously you are male and probably were under age 40 or the answer would be different if you were replaced by a younger white male. Especially if you were way over 40 and the replacement was way younger. Military Veterans can also get some protection as can disabled persons.



But yes - as an executive that has hired and fired hundreds of people over a 35 year career in management - I have been through this discussion many times.



I actually posted this and previous comments about how HR departments work to protect company interests because everyone on here has been hired or fired or will be and should be aware of these things.



I actually had one employee who was in a progressive discipline process that was as white and Jewish looking as you could possibly imagine casually mentioning to everyone in sight that he was part African American. He was eventually fired, but this claim had to be discussed and vetted and a few extra dots on the i and crosses on the T had to take place.



These things can all be dealt with given time, verbal warnings, written warnings, probations with weekly feedback meetings, as a documented progressive discipline program - when you have the time. Large layoffs can mitigate the risk if their is diversity represented in those laid off - but in a layoff - you cannot replace anyone or that protection evaporates. A layoff does not require any indication of bad performance if you are consistent about either seniority or proving that you kept the best candidates.

Luckily Utah is an at-will state, and any person can be let go for any reason at any time. As long as the company does not put in writing that a person is being fired for being one of a protected class then it is much harder for a fired employee to prove that they were.



Things are obviously much different in liberal lands where Cougarbib is used to dealing.

hawkwing wrote:
Luckily Utah is an at-will state, and any person can be let go for any reason at any time. As long as the company does not put in writing that a person is being fired for being one of a protected class then it is much harder for a fired employee to prove that they were.



Things are obviously much different in liberal lands where Cougarbib is used to dealing.

I'm in CA and was/am and am "at will" employee. That said, you can still sue for wrongful termination if you believe you've been fired wrongfully (you can always sue - doesn't mean you're going to win, though).



If you're a minority you have more of a case or at least can make it look like you have more of a case by playing the discrimination card. If an employee can show that they were discriminated against based on their race, etc. then the employer is in trouble, regardless of what state you live in.

Gunk wrote:

Luckily Utah is an at-will state, and any person can be let go for any reason at any time. As long as the company does not put in writing that a person is being fired for being one of a protected class then it is much harder for a fired employee to prove that they were.



Things are obviously much different in liberal lands where Cougarbib is used to dealing.

I'm in CA and was/am and am "at will" employee. That said, you can still sue for wrongful termination if you believe you've been fired wrongfully (you can always sue - doesn't mean you're going to win, though).



If you're a minority you have more of a case or at least can make it look like you have more of a case by playing the discrimination card. If an employee can show that they were discriminated against based on their race, etc. then the employer is in trouble, regardless of what state you live in.

Absolutely. In at-will employment you must prove that discrimination occurred. In non-at-will employment, the employer has to prove they aren't discriminating.

hawkwing wrote:
Luckily Utah is an at-will state, and any person can be let go for any reason at any time. As long as the company does not put in writing that a person is being fired for being one of a protected class then it is much harder for a fired employee to prove that they were.



Things are obviously much different in liberal lands where Cougarbib is used to dealing.

Naive Hawk



Every state I have managed people in was an at will state and some even had at will contracts. Trust me Hawk. This is how it works in Utah, too.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
Luckily Utah is an at-will state, and any person can be let go for any reason at any time. As long as the company does not put in writing that a person is being fired for being one of a protected class then it is much harder for a fired employee to prove that they were.



Things are obviously much different in liberal lands where Cougarbib is used to dealing.

I'm in CA and was/am and am "at will" employee. That said, you can still sue for wrongful termination if you believe you've been fired wrongfully (you can always sue - doesn't mean you're going to win, though).



If you're a minority you have more of a case or at least can make it look like you have more of a case by playing the discrimination card. If an employee can show that they were discriminated against based on their race, etc. then the employer is in trouble, regardless of what state you live in.

Absolutely. In at-will employment you must prove that discrimination occurred. In non-at-will employment, the employer has to prove they aren't discriminating.

Naive again. Discrimination is illegal everywhere. While at will employment definitely helps employers - discrimination is illegal everywhere and even when there has been no discrimination, you never know what a jury is going to do when poor vulnerable little employee claims discrimination vs big bad corporation.



Which is why HR Departments dot the i and cross the t and give extra warnings and multiple written warnings before firing people even in Utah.



Almost everyone on here that is not self-employed has signed an at will employment agreement - standard boiler plate these days. But they still have rights and should seek counsel if fired and replaced unless they have been given documented feedback about performance and opportunity to correct the performance - but if you are a young white male - then you probably have little rights unless you are a Veteran, have a disability, or were discriminated against based on religion.



For this audience - age would be where anyone eventually becomes a protected class - over age 40.

While I agree with you that discrimination is illegal everywhere and anyone can sue anyone even in an at-will employment scenario, you seem to be missing the point by a mile or 2.



So while this seems to be an interesting topic to you, it is not relevant because this is not an HR department forum. I'm locking this topic. If you'd like to discuss your appreciation for the nuances of HR departments feel free to do so in the Lounge where non-BYU related topics are discussed. Here is the link: http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewforum.php?f=5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Thanks for sharing your passion about HR.