Employee Alleged Harassment Case - Chad Kelly

[Will]

The question I have after reading Naylor's article is that the plaintiff had been employed by the team on a series of 1-year contracts since prior to the pandemic. Why were here skills, all of a sudden, not good enough? There are plenty of possible answers here, but I don't quite buy that explanation fully given the timing.

[AngeloV]

The question I have after reading Naylor's article is that the plaintiff had been employed by the team on a series of 1-year contracts since prior to the pandemic. Why were here skills, all of a sudden, not good enough? There are plenty of possible answers here, but I don't quite buy that explanation fully given the timing.

It is possible that some players didn't believe she was good at her job. With the player turnover year after year, there may be new voices that get heard.

[paulwoods13]

The question I have after reading Naylor's article is that the plaintiff had been employed by the team on a series of 1-year contracts since prior to the pandemic. Why were here skills, all of a sudden, not good enough? There are plenty of possible answers here, but I don't quite buy that explanation fully given the timing.

I have no idea what happened in this particular case. But an employee, either contract or permanent, being deemed inadequate after previously being deemed adequate is not unusual in any workplace IMO. Circumstances change, operational needs change, and individuals change.

[AngeloV]

I have no idea what happened in this particular case. But an employee, either contract or permanent, being deemed inadequate after previously being deemed adequate is not unusual in any workplace IMO. Circumstances change, operational needs change, and individuals change.

Perhaps they decided they wanted to expand the role, and she needed to improve at certain aspects to match the new requirements. Like you, I have no idea but, I can't see the head therapist lying about this. I am just not willing to accept the charges against Kelly and the Argos at this point.

[Argo57]

Perhaps they decided they wanted to expand the role, and she needed to improve at certain aspects to match the new requirements. Like you, I have no idea but, I can't see the head therapist lying about this. I am just not willing to accept the charges against Kelly and the Argos at this point.

One would also assume her immediate supervisor has documented any performance review and filed it with HR which would validate where and when this particular conversation took place.

[kellynjk]

I have no idea what happened in this particular case. But an employee, either contract or permanent, being deemed inadequate after previously being deemed adequate is not unusual in any workplace IMO. Circumstances change, operational needs change, and individuals change.

Yeah I totally agree with this, especially as she was a "strength and conditioning coach" and maybe the needs and requirements of some team members was also changing over time. Almost any profession you can think of (doctors, teachers etc) requires that their members do "quality assurance training" every few years to ensure that they are up to date on current practices etc. And one would think that this would be even more important for someone who has a job dealing with athletes who may be coming off of injuries etc. I think AngeloV is right, that alot will depend on if there are witnesses to some of these conversations and/or encounters.

Also if the Argos were going to go the route of mediation, wouldn't they have done it by now? Or could it be that they have suggested this route, but the plaintiff hasn't been open to it?

["Issues"Mcgee]

I have no idea what happened in this particular case. But an employee, either contract or permanent, being deemed inadequate after previously being deemed adequate is not unusual in any workplace IMO. Circumstances change, operational needs change, and individuals change.

Agreed. That's kind of the whole idea behind one-year contracts.

[jerrym]

I have no idea what happened in this particular case. But an employee, either contract or permanent, being deemed inadequate after previously being deemed adequate is not unusual in any workplace IMO. Circumstances change, operational needs change, and individuals change.

I don't know what happened in this case either. However, statistics show far more people get fired over personality or other personal conflicts than over whether they are competent or not. My wife worked in healthcare for fifteen years in one firm repeatedly winning employee-of-the-week awards, employee-of-the-month, and employee of the year awards. Then she got involved in a conflict with her brand new on the job fifth manager who was influenced by a disgruntled employee and bang she was gone. The good news, although we expected to she would be unemployed for some time, the phone starting ringing off the hook as soon as she put her resume out and she had the choice of many jobs, and ended being able to choose working in the top-rated hospital in BC in the department dealing with patients with brain injuries. It ended up being the best career move of her life. By the way when head office where she had worked investigated her firing, the ended up firing the manager who fired her and the other disgruntled employee.