Eva Carniero
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 npn  Crowborough 06 Jun 16 2.00pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
She is being advised by a Barrister Stu. If she is taking his advice then she won't be doing anything idiotic, they are sharp as anything. Ask our own tame one on these boards. But she may be aiming for a higher 'Courtroom Steps' payment a bit later on. This whole thing does depend upon her establishing racial and/or sexual discrimination which isn't all that easy. Using these protected characteristics as the rationale for the claim is the reason the liability is uncapped. They must feel confident. Probably the Chelsea offer (I am assuming also encompassing the Mourinho claim) is a 'Without Prejudice save as to costs' offer, aiming to avoid picking up her future litigation cost and to put pressure on her to agree without a lengthy hearing. I may be mis-remembering, but didn't she get slated along with another fella (can't remember his role). If that's the case, then surely that blows both "isms" out of the water? She may have been treated badly, and probably unfairly (and have grounds for unfair dismissal on that basis), but it had nothing whatsoever to do with her race or gender, which have both just been thrown in the mix to increase the payout, in my opinion..
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 06 Jun 16 2.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If i remember correctly the guy (John Fearn) involved was reinstated almost immediately? That could be grounds for unfair dismissal. Given she is potentially the better qualified of the two.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 06 Jun 16 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
If i remember correctly the guy (John Fearn) involved was reinstated almost immediately? That could be grounds for unfair dismissal. Given she is potentially the better qualified of the two. He wasn't. He was back after 8 months and after Mourinho had been sacked. He took his demotion and she quit in a huff.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 06 Jun 16 3.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
If i remember correctly the guy (John Fearn) involved was reinstated almost immediately? That could be grounds for unfair dismissal. Given she is potentially the better qualified of the two. She doesn't want unfair dismissal as there is a cap on what she can syphon out of Chelsea but if she can sue successfully for sex or racial discrimination the sky is the limit for the greedy cow
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Littlebogreek  06 Jun 16 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Definitely would.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 06 Jun 16 3.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
She doesn't want unfair dismissal as there is a cap on what she can syphon out of Chelsea but if she can sue successfully for sex or racial discrimination the sky is the limit for the greedy cow Sorry yes I meant sexual discrimination given she wasn't actually fired
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 06 Jun 16 6.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
Sorry yes I meant sexual discrimination given she wasn't actually fired You are both right Unfair dismissal, constructive, by reason of one or more protected characteristic. Then the cap on unfair dismissal payments comes off. Having said that, it's a lot to claim you have lost in earnings. The top payment guideline for injury to feelings is £30k. Hopefully a legal expert on here can explain how she may have such a high claim. Doesn't she have to mitigate her loss?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matthau South Croydon 06 Jun 16 7.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There'll be less women involved in mens football as a result. that in turn is wrong but i can see the FA old gits looking to somehow edge them out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 06 Jun 16 8.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
You are both right Unfair dismissal, constructive, by reason of one or more protected characteristic. Then the cap on unfair dismissal payments comes off. Having said that, it's a lot to claim you have lost in earnings. The top payment guideline for injury to feelings is £30k. Hopefully a legal expert on here can explain how she may have such a high claim. Doesn't she have to mitigate her loss? I would guess future employability, reputation being damaged etc almost any post after Chelsea would be a step down. My company have been involved in a couple of cour hearings in Croydon and they tend to be pretty good the fact that a substantial offer was made and she declined could well be viewed dimly by the court. However maybe it's not so much about the actual money but more about add ons. Confidentiality, apology etc. Oh and I would imagine another factor is the PR disaster that followed from Chelsea. They openly briefed against her to the press. Affairs with players etc
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 06 Jun 16 8.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
I would guess future employability, reputation being damaged etc almost any post after Chelsea would be a step down. My company have been involved in a couple of cour hearings in Croydon and they tend to be pretty good the fact that a substantial offer was made and she declined could well be viewed dimly by the court. However maybe it's not so much about the actual money but more about add ons. Confidentiality, apology etc. Doubt it. The Tribunal won't award her any money to keep shtum so she could only get that by doing a deal with the Club. In my experience Tribunals won't look much further than a couple of years in terms of loss of earnings unless she definitely could not get a future job. She was on £280k plus bonuses but was offered £400k to return to work. So it looks like she is after 3 to 4 years of pay, which to me is a pretty unlikely outcome. I like it that part of her claim is Chelsea didn't stop 'sexually explicit chanting' targeted at her. The mind boggles as to what she wanted them to do. Especially as it was away games! What I have seen so far gives me little sympathy for her. She could have walked away with a huge wedge and moved onto another big job. Instead she looks like a media whore (I would say that about a male as well as a female by the way) who aims to cash in big style on this one case. I would just love it if the Tribunal finds she wasn't constructively dismissed due to race or sex. Then she may well be able to claim constructive dismissal but likely less than £80k. Sadly it won't happen but it would be sweet. Edited by Mapletree (06 Jun 2016 8.40pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jacey 06 Jun 16 9.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Sg Bilko
Quote black eagle. at 02 Oct 2015 6.02pm
I feel sorry for Eva,she was sacked for doing her job. Yes she probably had banter with the players but if as rumoured mourinho insulted her then he should be punished not only by Chelsea but by the FA. Study the video, she gave as good as she got if not better, and by the way she was not fired, she walked out. It's all about the money,money!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 06 Jun 16 9.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I just realised she isn't claiming race discrimination. So she only has sex left and frankly football clubs must look like easy targets. The case seems to swing on whether she was called daughter of a wh*re in Portuguese. As she is presumably English and Spanish speaking I wonder how she would know the Portuguese for such language and be able to differentiate between that and what Mourinho claims he said, son of a b*tch. I might just take a little stroll down into Croydon as this warms up, normally anyone can walk into a Tribunal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.