The Lions' Pride

Does he have a case? Maybe. Chances are they will settle and make him sign a confidentiality agreement so he can't write a book about the whole thing.

It should be an interesting case. He wasn't retained but is that due to Bill not wanting him for lack of skill or because he was damaged goods connected to the November nightmare.

My guess is he would wish to settle before the January trial for Curley and Shultz, the testimony there will not be flattering to McQueary's case.

I agree the replacement WR coach is great, no comparison. I will be interesting to see the McQueary argument.

Whether O'Brien would have retained him or not isn't the main/only issue. He is claiming PSU's failures as they related to Sandusky have ruined his coaching career. I would expect a settlement and he had to file the case to get the ball rolling and probably discussed a settlement with them prior to filing.

His own actions may have helped in defaming his own name but that is really going to be irrelevant. A court of law doesnt operate by the theory of what a person would have or should have done to prevent something. If I see you bully a kid and I tell the principal and you retaliate by breaking out the windows in my car. I still have a right to sue you, just like Mike has the right to sue to PSU. Penn State will ultimately settle however.

It doesn't matter if he would have been retained at PSU, the argument is that he COULD have been retained or he could have gotten a similar job but based on the events of the last year his career is ruined. I mean I'm not trying to stick up for the guy but he's been a coach his whole life and now he'll probably never coach again. He's just looking out for himself which is what anybody would do.

I am not sure, but I was under the impression that everyone on the old staff was interviewed/talked with O'Brien. Maybe that's incorrect.

I am not familiar with whistleblower laws, but wouldn't you need to be an employee at the time you turn in an incident? If my memory serves me right, when he called Joe that night, Joe said he didn't have any open positions for him, and he was hired full time later on. Or since he was a GA would that make him an employee? I would think that he would be considered a student at the time. Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I haven't seen anyone mention this aspect.

Maybe I too am not familiar with the whistleblower law, but MM was complicit in the coverup by not reporting it outside of the University. Is he not therefore blowing the whistle on himself? I would think that at best he could ask for his salary for the next 25 years based on his GA salary in 1998. Furthermore he never testified that there was any specific cover-up by Penn State that he was blowing the whistle on. I am sure our BOT will probably counter with an offer of 8 million to "move on".

he did not have that happen.... he was hired by PSU. Hence he is either a liar or part of a cover up.

I doubt it. Maybe it's just me, but if Joe were alive, wouldn't he have more of a case than McQueary? Mainly because Joe was fired while McQueary was not. What they did was relatively equivalent (telling the people above them). It's not like McQueary went out and was the hero who brought in the police. He didn't blow any whistles. Don't see how this is a case.