Quote Originally Posted by Hot Rock View Post
teh

If they have a case and proof of this happening systemically, then it is absolutely the right thing to do to bring a lawsuit. If they don't have a good case, then yeah, he shouldn't have sued. The lawyers he hired are the ones driving it. Do they have a legit case or are they just after the fees. I do not know.

Would have been easier to just be quite and make a good living coaching somewhere? Maybe. But maybe he was tired of the system being slanted and wanted to make a difference. If he didn't believe it, I doubt this lawsuit happens. He may not win but I bet he believes he was wronged. Was he? is the question. I for sure thought it was obvious to everyone for years the Rooney Rule had become a joke.

We know he is a good coach and he most certainly would have gotten a job somewhere even if it wasn't a HC job making a good living and may have gotten another HC shot but: Some people just can't go away quietly when they feel wronged.
With respect to some people being unable to go away quietly, "whistleblowers" are almost always unlikeable people. Very rarely does being a whistleblower work out well for the whistleblower, so people that become whistleblowers are usually very disagreeable and unlikeable (or they are scammers looking for a payday). Flores seems to pretty clearly be the former. It looks like he was fired pretty much for not being the type of guy that will go along to get along. It doesn't appear that he was fired for his onfield results, which seemed reasonably promising. His only problem legally is that it doesn't look like it was race related. The racial stuff gives him a lot of leverage from a PR standpoint, but it looks like the worst thing that happened to him was he went to some sham interviews, which is demeaning, but I'm not sure gives rise to any claims. What are the damages for your name being circulated for jobs you're not actually in contention for? Judging by Sexton clients, it's a plus, not a negative.

Assuming his allegations are true, I'm not sure what legal claim being retaliated against for not tanking raises. If he was being asked to violate a law, that'd be simple. Not sure what it means to be retaliated against for not violating an NFL rule against tanking (which I assume doesn't implicate any federal or state laws).