Donald Sterling and Racism

[garbon]

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/la-naacp-head-resigns-move-honor-sterling-23556060

LA NAACP Head Resigns Over Move to Honor Sterling

The president of the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP resigned Thursday, following outrage over a decision he later reversed to give Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling an award for promoting civil rights.

Leon Jenkins was to honor Sterling later this month, but rescinded that offer Monday after a recording surfaced over the weekend on which Sterling disparaged black men.

In a letter to the national leader of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, Jenkins wrote that he resigned "to separate the Los Angeles NAACP and the NAACP from the negative exposure I have caused."

A telephone message and email seeking comment after business hours from the Los Angeles chapter were not immediately returned.

Even before the recording, the decision to give Sterling a "lifetime achievement award" May 15 at the 100th anniversary celebration of the Los Angeles chapter had been questioned by some civil rights activists, who cited allegations of discrimination in Sterling's past.

The U.S. Justice Department sued Sterling in August 2006, alleging housing discrimination in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles. In November 2009, Sterling agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle allegations that he refused to rent apartments to Hispanics and blacks.

Also in 2009, the year after Jenkins was first elected president in Los Angeles, the chapter first honored Sterling with a similar achievement award.

Branches of the NAACP — there are more than 50 in California alone — operate with considerable autonomy. In a statement accompanying the resignation announcement, the national NAACP said it is "developing guidelines for its branches to help them in their award selection process."

Jenkins said that Sterling had been selected owing to his history of donating to minority charities and giving game tickets to inner-city children. The Donald T. Sterling Charitable Foundation gave $5,000 to the NAACP's Los Angeles chapter in 2010, according to tax records. There were no further NAACP contributions in subsequent years for which records were available.

After the recording of Sterling having a private conversation with a woman became public, Jenkins backtracked.

"There is a personal, economic and social price that Mr. Sterling must pay for his attempt to turn back the clock on race relations," he said Monday.

On Tuesday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Sterling from the league for life, fined the real estate magnate $2.5 million, and said he wanted the league's board of governors to make Sterling sell the team.

Sterling is the NBA's longest-tenured owner. He is also among the league's least successful, though in recent years the Clippers have surged. News of Jenkins' resignation broke an hour before the Clippers tipped off against the Golden State Warriors in a first-round playoff game.

Reacting to the announcement, local activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson said the NAACP's Los Angeles chapter needed to become "fully transparent and accountable to its members and community and not to dubious corporate donors."

Jenkins had his own legal problems, which also came into focus this week. For years, he has been banned from practicing law in California based on allegations of corruption when he was a young judge in Detroit.

[crazy canuck]

Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.

He's a spiteful old man. Even if the court rules against him he'll probably just leak it to the media.

If he sues he wont be able to ask the question if its not relevant.  If he already knows then he doesnt have to sue to leak it to the media.

[grumbler]

But he's salviaiating!

His saliva glands are a dairy farm!

[Ed Anger]

With Jeremy Clarkson now apparently caught saying the naughty word, he will be forced to sell his cars.

[Malthus]

Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.

His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.

Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.

[HVC]

Lawyered

[The Larch]

Apparently one of the reasons why the league didn't act earlier is that the guy has been fighting prostate cancer for several years and he had been almost ruled out several times.

[garbon]

Apparently one of the reasons why the league didn't act earlier is that the guy has been fighting prostate cancer for several years and he had been almost ruled out several times.

Sounds like a nice excuse after the fact.

[derspiess]

I do wonder if there are a few other NBA owners that are nervous this week.

[Malthus]

Lawyered

The judge could well rule all that evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. 

Reminds me of a case I had years ago, the guy suing my client was a "priest" (really a scam artist) who alleged (correctly!) that he'd been defrauded of hundreds of thousands of dollars in his hard-earned cash (which he in turn had stolen from others).

We desperately wanted to get into evidence the fact that he - the "priest" - had beed arrested and convicted a decade before for importing massive quantities of revolting hardcore porn - namely, women comitting acts of beastiality (sorry, Brain  ) in South American countries - really nasty stuff, obviously coerced and drugged-up models (according to the indictment or whatever they call it in the US). We did that by seeking security for costs, alleging that, as a former felon living in a foreign country, he was unlikely to be willing to pay his costs if he lost! We got the evidence in. Best part: female judge. 

That case was a wild one in every way - by the end of it, our client was being sued by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. Seriously. 

[alfred russel]

His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.

Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.

I really doubt that he is going to find a bunch of racist comments made by other owners. Also, even in the event he could, I think there is an argument that ultimately the publicity of the racist comments is a critical part of the effecting the actual conduct of business. I don't know if the NBA would make that, or if it would hold up.

Probably his best strategy is to say that he is an elderly man suffering from cancer and dementia, and has stepped back from the operations of the team. The comments weren't impacting the day to day operations of the team; he isn't even involved in them very much anymore. Then bring in an expert on dementia to discuss all the horrible things people with dementia sometimes say.

[Malthus]

His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.

Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.

I really doubt that he is going to find a bunch of racist comments made by other owners. Also, even in the event he could, I think there is an argument that ultimately the publicity of the racist comments is a critical part of the effecting the actual conduct of business. I don't know if the NBA would make that, or if it would hold up.

Probably his best strategy is to say that he is an elderly man suffering from cancer and dementia, and has stepped back from the operations of the team. The comments weren't impacting the day to day operations of the team; he isn't even involved in them very much anymore. Then bring in an expert on dementia to discuss all the horrible things people with dementia sometimes say.

Absolutely, if he wants to win the case. I'm assuming the money is trivial for an 80 year old billionaire, and what he would want is to shit disturb and troll his fellow-owners. 

[alfred russel]

Absolutely, if he wants to win the case. I'm assuming the money is trivial for an 80 year old billionaire, and what he would want is to shit disturb and troll his fellow-owners. 

He could probably do both?

Probably the biggest act of trolling would be to win though, right? Any positive cache he gets as an owner has to be gone forever, and by keeping the team he is probably impairing its value. I just imagine him sitting at half court in a mostly empty arena without sponsors with only the bottom dregs of the NBA willing to play for him, despised by everyone. It would be like old times, actually, but on steroids.

We shall see. Some of the owners are actually corporations which are limited in their ability to say racist things. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think his comments are unique among owners.

[crazy canuck]

Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.

His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.

Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.

You are confusing the league constituting documents with an employment contract where that sort of argument would be relevant. This isnt really a breach of contract case.  The league acts like a Society which gives discretion to the commissioner to act with the powers of an arbitrator and who's decisions are ratified by the rest of the Society according to its bylaws.

The only way to attack that decision is to argue that the bylaws of the league were not followed.  ie an administrative law question.

Edit: and I should add, a legal question to which to evidence Timmay speculated about is completely irrelevant.
 

[derspiess]

We shall see. Some of the owners are actually corporations which are limited in their ability to say racist things.

People who work in or run corporations can say racist things.