The Global Mission of Team Type 1 and the ethics of managing a team

Make up your own mind regarding the treatment of James Stout by Team Type 1, someone they say provided no services to them.

As expected no response has been received to the following letter:

 

Richard H Bennett

Kitchens Kelley Gaynes

Attorneys at Law

Atlanta

Georgia, USA.

6 June 2011

Dear Mr Bennett,

RE: Team Type 1, Inc. (“TT1″) and James Stout; Your file no. 77031.1

Thank you for your letter of May 12 2011.

Firstly, in respect of the allegation you have made in respect of libel and other matters with which you have taken “great exception”. Our original letter to you was copied to members of the Jobie Dajka Foundation, including myself, who have been assisting Mr Stout in respects of the difficulties he has faced as a result of his dealing with Team Type 1.

The letter was also copied to the UCI and the USCF as both bodies have the power to deal with and arbitrate disputes between their members. Members of the UCI are subject to its rules and those rules make specific provision for disputes between riders and teams to be dealt with by the UCI Arbitral Board. There is no provision in those rules that limits such dispute resolution to ‘professional’ cyclists. In fact that term is probably meaningless in this context since the merging of the professional and amateur bodies in the 1980s.

If in fact the term professional has any meaning in this context it would carry with it a meaning that referred to a person who is paid to be a sportsperson, in this case a cyclist. The contract clearly envisages Mr Stout to be paid for his services, something we will refer to below. In respect of the USCF it is bound by the UCI Constitution and Regulations and in some circumstances has the power to carry out the functions of the UCI.

Having dealt with what appears to be the customary chest beating by US Attorneys may we move on to deal with the substance of the matters at hand?

An assertion by you that Mr Stout’s termination was valid does not mean that it was in fact or law valid. In respect of this we note that you have forwarded to us some 42 pages of contracts and related codes which you claim Mr Stout is bound by. Given your assertion that Mr Stout is not a professional cyclist this does appear somewhat excessive. In this context, and generally, it is difficult to understand why Mr Stout was subject to such a contract and conditions, especially when the conditions contained therein are more detailed, far reaching and onerous than that which a Pro Tour rider is subject. We leave for another day the question as to whether the entire contract may or may not be unconscionable in the circumstances.

Although your client undertook to pay Mr Stout a monthly salary of $1000 US, you claim that no fee is payable up until the point of termination of the contract on the grounds that because Mr. Stout did not must provide any services to Team Type 1. It is not apparent from your letter upon what you base your claim that Mr Stout has not provided services. I note that the contract requires Mr Stout to perform various services for the team, including to race for the team, to maintain reasonable competitive fitness throughout the season and to participate in training sessions and promotional activities. During 2011 alone Mr Stout provided at least the following services to the team:

Promotional Services: The 2011 Tour de Cure breakfast, the Omnipod sponsor day in Redding. Mr Stout has provided substantial biographical information and completed numerous questionnaires for the team’s public relations staff. He competed in the San Diego Gran Fondo. His image and profile appeared, and continue to appear, on the team’s web site: http://www.teamtype1.org/teams/team_type1_development/james_stout/

Training Services: Mr Stout trained regularly, at least 25 to 30 hours per week, in order to provide the Team with the service of maintaining his reasonable fitness as set out in the contract. He received correspondence from team staff setting out training plans and advice which he followed.

Racing and Promotional Services: Mr Stout raced the Murco Credit Union stage race, Merced County Cycling Classic and three criteriums promoted by the California Bicycle Racing Organisation at Dominguez Hills, California.  At all times Mr Stout raced and trained in his Team Type 1 clothing.
Accordingly, there is no basis for you to claim that no services were provided under the contract.

In respect of the visa, Mr Stout advised the team that he would need a visa before the contract came into force, that is during December 2010. At that time Team Type 1 undertook to organize a visa for Mr Stout and once the contract commenced Mr Stout undertook services under the contract for the Team. The Team induced Mr Stout to perform those services on the basis that it would organize his working visa.

In respect of the purported termination. Firstly you claim:

Mr. Stout was required (a) “to conduct himself… in accordance with generally accepted standards of morality [and not to engage] in any activity which reflects adversely on the image…” of major sponsors, (b) to conduct himself in a sportsmanlike manner, (c) to maintain a clean and neat appearance, (d) to maintain a respectful behavior, and (e) to accept direction from management. Mr. Stout failed to abide by these requirements when he appeared at a TT1 related function wearing a t-shirt with prominent reference to male genitalia, leading to his April 23, 2011 probation.

Let us be clear. One, you cannot have it both ways, by claiming that the event was a “TT1 related event” you are conceding that Mr Stout was performing promotional services under the contract. On the other hand, the fact is that the event in question was a private party organised by a friend of Mr Stout’s who had invited Mr Stout personally to the party. The mere fact that some other person related to Team Type 1 attended the party does not mean it is a “TT1 related event”. In these circumstances it appears that what is in issue is that Mr Stout did not conduct himself… in accordance with generally accepted standards of morality” because he wore “a t-shirt with prominent reference to male genitalia” in circumstances not related to his employment.

The facts are these:

Mr Stout attended a private party outside of his employment. It was not a Team Type 1 event.

At that party he wore a T-Shirt which had on it the words “I ride a bicycle to compensate for my enormous penis”.

The word PENIS is commonly defined as referring to the male genital organ of higher vertebrates, carrying the duct for the transfer of sperm during copulation. In humans and most other mammals, it consists largely of erectile tissue and serves also for the elimination of urine.

It is not regarded as a offensive term or a term contrary “generally accepted standards of morality”.

The case might be different if the language displayed on the T Shirt was offensive or contrary to “generally accepted standards of morality”, however, it beggars belief to argue that the word PENIS could be regarded as such.

Accordingly, there was no basis for your client to place Mr Stout on probation. In any event, why would any employer place an employee on probation if that employee was not employed and was not performing services under a contract?

The second allegation upon which the termination of the contract was based was stated in your letter as being that that “Mr. Stout then again violated his contract during his probation when he tweeted offensive language in violation of the above-described requirements and after a previous oral warning regarding Mr. Stout’s inappropriate use of social media in contradiction of ’TT1 policy.”

You have provided no evidence of the alleged previous oral warning and in any event here again the substance of the allegation beggars belief.

The “tweet” you refer to contained the following words:

RT @AJELive: Afghan president Hamid Karzai says that the killed of Osama bin Laden is very important news. #AlJazeera #noshitsherlock

On the Letter of Termination sent to Mr Stout Team Type 1 claim that this constitutes a breach of the provisions in the Code of Conduct relating to “Work Place Violence”. How such an action constitutes workplace violence is not described and in any event it clearly does not constitute such an act.

The Letter of Termination also states that the “tweet” had the consequence of having a negative effect for Phil Southerland while in discussions with the Muslim Community. No evidence of any discussions or negative effect has been produced and it is difficult to see how such a “tweet” could in fact have such an affect.

Finally, am I to understand that you seriously claim that the hashtag, #noshitsherlock, which appears constantly on twitter is regarded as being offensive language?

I note that you have not contested (other than the question of whether Mr Stout was performing services under the contract) the following matters set out in my original letter to you on behalf of Mr Stout:

-    that whilst performing his duties under his contract Mr Stout had to sleep in a car or on friend’s sofas as his wages had not been paid;

-     that Mr Stout’s supply of insulin was canceled by the Team whilst he was living in the US and performing services for the Team;

-    that the cancellation of the insulin supply and the distress relating to his contractual situation have had a negative effect on the management of his diabetes condition.

In all of the circumstances Mr Stout continues to believe (and with good grounds) that Team Type 1 owes him his salary or at least an ex gratia payment equivalent to his salary for the first five months of 2011. I note your view that the payment for the fifth month should be prorated, however given the circumstances of his treatment it would seem that the least the Team could do is compensate him fairly.

Along with that the Team should forward his personal affects to him without further delay. I will send you an address for the delivery of the personal affects as soon as possible.

I have not written to you as Mr Stout’s attorney but as a person involved in cycling who believes that riders of all levels should be treated with dignity and respect and not unfairly or arbitrarily. Team Type 1 may well believe it was within its rights to act in the way it did, but on any fair reading of the situation it would seem that they have not acted as well as they should have in respect of Mr Stout and when he questioned this the Team relied on rather onerous and draconian contractual provisions to get rid of him.

I must note that I find it very difficult to understand why, given Team Type 1’s stated ‘global mission’ how the act of stopping Mr Stout’s supply of insulin can be justified on any grounds. Notwithstanding, that team members had been advised that insulin would be supplied by to them by team sponsors, there appears to be a discrepancy between the public rhetoric of being a charity that aids and supports diabetic people, and the reality of this callous action. The action of the team left Mr Stout in a precarious position, without money, a home or insulin, and Mr Southerland’s advice to him that he should visit a doctor and ask for free insulin samples appears even more incredible given his personal ‘mission’.

I look forward to being able to convey to Mr Stout an amicable resolution of this matter.  However, given the manner in which Mr Southerland has dealt with him in the past I do not hold out much hope for a amicable resolution. I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this.

Mr Stout currently has no income, and his attempting to rebuild his life and focus upon his studies, he has no funds with which to take legal action against Team Type 1. However, in the end it seems that Mr Stout’s only remedy can be in the court of public opinion and through the good offices of those that administer the sport of cycling in the USA and internationally.

Yours faithfully

 

Martin Hardie

For and on behalf of James Stout.