I have been given the unfortunate news that Harold Reynolds has been fired by ESPN. I hope this is not true. HR is the least biased (Except when it comes to Griffy) and actually gives good analysis of all the teams not just the Yanks and the Soxs. I guess now ESPN will have Steve Phillips hold a press conference.

THAT SUCKS !! He was one of the few announcers that I liked...

That sucks. I remember when he was with The Orioles. First Max Kellerman, now this. As long as Mike and Mike stay put.

I'm shocked. Well, ESPN is truly the evil empire if this is true.
I saw him last year in Williamsport at the Little League World Series and he couldn't have been nicer. I thought he was as insightful as any of their analysts.

His picture an bio are still on the ESPN web site.

I don't particularly care for either Reynolds or his partner-in-crime, John Kruk. I much prefer Peter Gammons or Steve Phillips.

It is reported that he was let go because of accusations of sexual harrassment. Reynolds maintains that it was a misunderstanding. ESPN is offering no comment, other than Reynolds no longer works there.

I recall reading a book about ESPN approximately 6 years ago, in which it was alleged that Mike Tirico engaged in a pattern of sexual harrassment with a female employee.

I just wish they get rid of that whiny, suck-up Dan Patrick.

Apparently HR hugged a female employee. My favorite part of this is the possibility of the head of ESPN sitting HR down and saying, “Harold, it wasn’t so much the hug that was improper… it was the fact that you didn’t have pants on that made it improper.”

ESPN here is reporting the same, that he gave a female employee a hug. Come on now. As a woman, hell I give people hugs all the time. Probably some prude who hates men and wants to sue or something. I don't think a hug is anything to get fired over.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=2529986

I once read in an uncomplimentary book about ESPN that Mike Tirico had been involved in a pattern of sexual harrassment against a female employee.

There are two standards for sexual harassment. The first, which is the form most people are familiar with, is called quid pro quo. As an example, providing sexual favors to your boss in exchange for something within the boss's control, like a favorable review or getting a raise. There is a second standard called hostile environment in which co-workers exhibit a pattern of unwanted sexual behavior that affects an employee's ability to do their job and the company does nothing to discourage the behavior.

A hug (if that's what happened) seen as innocent flirting to one person might be perceived as boorish behavior by another person. And yet another person may see it as an unwanted advance, particularly since some sort of physical contact was involved.

The following is an excellent summary of conduct for the "hostile environment" standard of sexual harassment. This specific paragraph came from the University of Maryland web site (it was the most concise statement that I could find quickly). It's fair to say this statement was drafted based on court cases which have been decided over the past 25-30 years when the concept of a "hostile environement" was first recognized as sexual harassment by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. City of Dundee and Bundy v. Jackson.

Hostile environment harassment
Sex harassment may also arise from unwanted conduct which is so severe or persistent that it creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational or working environment. Conduct may be physical, verbal or nonverbal. For example, the following types of behavior may constitute harassment: touching; hugging; kissing; sexual remarks about a person's clothing, body or sexual relations; repeated requests for a date; conversations of a sexual nature or similar jokes and stories; the display of sexually explicit materials in the workplace; and the use of sexually explicit materials in the classroom which are without defensible educational purposes.

If this is what happened, why would ESPN suddenly be so sensitive to this issue when, by all accounts, this type of behavior might have been tolerated in the past?

ESPN is now owned by ABC/CapCities/Disney/Etc. which, in addition to the cable, television and radio networks, also holds several radio and television licenses. The quickest way to run afoul of the FCC during license transfer or renewal (aside from an indecency finding) is to have another federal agency taking action against the license holder, like the EEOC, or to have a sexual harassment civil suit pending in federal court because the company failed to do anything about a sexual harasment complaint made by an employee.

I suspect, in these politically correct times, the gray area of sexual harrassment will likely swing more towards a finding of "hostile environment" rather than that of merely "boorish behavior." That means a greater intolerance and possibly a quicker trigger-finger from an employer for any act that could be perceived as sexual harrasment.

tony b.

Labor law geek...

Me too, I love Harold Reynolds and Peter Gammons

I think it is just funnier to think he hugged her with out pants on.