\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted May 11, 2011 Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) http://www.indystar.com/article/20110510/NEWS/110510003 Edited May 12, 2011 by \GoBillsInDallas/
billsfan in n.h Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 all cheerleaders should have their uniforms painted on... and have a mobile trampoline on the sidelines for the cheers... every game would sellout
ExWNYer Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 http://www.indystar.com/article/20110510/NEWS/110510003 I'm sure the Jills can find a spot for her!
Keukasmallies Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 After reading the accompanying article, I'm intrigued, in this context, by the concept of "front pay."
Beerball Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Please no more links that include the 'money shot'. Folks will search them out on their own. Thanks.
RyanC883 Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 This is interesting. First, why would the Colts enter into contracts with Cheerleaders? They should have them as "at-will" employees so that they can be fired for any or no reason. Now, the Cheerleader has a good shot of winning her suit becuase I'm sure someone on the Colts committed more acts (DUI's, beating up a GF, etc.) that created more "notarity" than this incident yet were retained. The only defense is if a player did this that he brings more money to the organization than the player. The whole thing is odd.
Beerball Posted May 12, 2011 Posted May 12, 2011 Not that big a deal. <edited> Did you misunderstand my post explaining that what you linked was inappropriate?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) Strange... The Colts claim she is bringing "notarity" with her actions... When in reality, the COLTS themselves are bringing the notarity by firing her. More people would NOT have heard about her actions if she wasn't fired in the first place. Edited May 13, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois
bladiebla Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) pics or it didnt happen What is wrong with bodypainted women... it's a freaking artform. Pictures of people with heads shot off arent a problem and a little erotic art is? Talk about mixed up morals. Edited May 13, 2011 by bladiebla
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 pics or it didnt happen What is wrong with bodypainted women... it's a freaking artform. Pictures of people with heads shot off arent a problem and a little erotic art is? Talk about mixed up morals. Yeah, my european friends think America is completely nuts -- shootings and violence every hour on every TV channel, and a big whup-de-do over a "wardrobe malfunction" that showed a little nipple
mob16151 Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 They shouldnt have fired her. All she needed was a good spanking.
tennesseeboy Posted May 13, 2011 Posted May 13, 2011 Two problems from the Colts defense...The quoted portion of the contract talks of her "committing acts" of notoriety, not "having committed". The contract language quoted refers to future acts or acts committed during the term of the contract. If the Colts wanted warranties of past behavior they should have asked for that. Given that many of these women are attractive and have had modeling experience it would arguably have been their responsibility to have done due diligence before they hired her or to have had a provision for termination on past behavior in the contract. The second issue is the allegation that "According to the suit, cheerleaders who are white have posed in similar photographs and haven’t been fired." if proven, the Colts have an issue. The third issue is who decides what "notorious" means? This wasn't an appearance in a porn movie or obvious problemmatic behaviors. The Colts will probably quietly settle this baby for a lot of money and get a confidentiality agreement.
Recommended Posts