STLtoday.com

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:22 pm

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:35 am

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:08 am

JaseMan wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025 18:45 pm I swear I heard Bernie say a few years back that shildt was screaming and demeaning people. Mo did say something in that interview that it was advised by legal to keep a lid on it.

Are labor laws different in St. Louis? Screaming and demeaning doesn't seem like a legal reason to have to fire someone. Depending on how bad it was, it certainly could've been grounds for firing and something they thought they had to do for the sake on the organization. I'm just not sure how it would be a legal issue.

Oh and thanks so much for providing info. Really appreciate it.

Lordy, stupidity of CT continues to worsen...

Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine. This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as there is:

No employment contract being broken
No discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability)
No merit laws apply, or
The state’s limited public policy exception does not apply.

What exactly do you mean by stupidity continues to worsen?

Imperial Capitalist wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:36 pm

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:22 pm

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:35 am

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:08 am

JaseMan wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025 18:45 pm I swear I heard Bernie say a few years back that shildt was screaming and demeaning people. Mo did say something in that interview that it was advised by legal to keep a lid on it.

Are labor laws different in St. Louis? Screaming and demeaning doesn't seem like a legal reason to have to fire someone. Depending on how bad it was, it certainly could've been grounds for firing and something they thought they had to do for the sake on the organization. I'm just not sure how it would be a legal issue.

Oh and thanks so much for providing info. Really appreciate it.

Lordy, stupidity of CT continues to worsen...

Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine. This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as there is:

No employment contract being broken
No discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability)
No merit laws apply, or
The state’s limited public policy exception does not apply.

What exactly do you mean by stupidity continues to worsen?

I'm not breaking news here, or even slightly spraining it for that matter, but if that jack wagon doesn't get to roll his eyes at someone, or call people stupid, [fork]-tards, "morans", or just generally insult people each and every day, I'm guessing it's not a good day for him.

hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:45 pm My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...

ronnie76 wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025 18:38 pm Anyone know what Mo was hinting at when he discussed Shildt's firing last week? Seemed like he was hinting, Shildt had done something that they had no choice but to fire him for.

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 15:47 pm

hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:45 pm My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...

Yeah, but Mo hinted at something which gave them no choice but to fire him and hinted at legal reasons. At least that's how I interpreted his comments.

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:11 pm Mo's comments for reference.


"There were certainly reasons why we had to make that decision. I don't think the public forum is the right place for it. I do feel like I get beaten up for it. Legally, I was advised that as an employer, there is only so much that can be said. I don't want to beat around the bush. I know we had to make a decision. I believe it was the right decision. People can argue that they don't think it was. However, I'm sure that someday more of this will come to light. I'm sure some of the people who worked with me or under him might have some things to say as well. But to me, it's what has happened, happened," Mozeliak said.

nighthawk wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:20 pm This forum despised Schildt as it does all managers, so I hardly think it matters.

hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:15 pm

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 15:47 pm

hugeCardfan wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:45 pm My theory on the firing was that Schildt went around Mo to DeWitt to address issues Mo failed to.... I think Mo was offended and was unwilling to overlook the overzealous nature of the act. In Schildt's defense, I suspect he'd covered his issues with Mo extensively and wasn't willing to sit on his hands...

Yeah, but Mo hinted at something which gave them no choice but to fire him and hinted at legal reasons. At least that's how I interpreted his comments.

As a boss, I'm sure he felt there was no option but to fire a guy who might have gone directly to DeWitt rather than take his decision as gospel. The legal reasons he refers to are to not discuss the firing. The lawyers don't want him to feed Schildt specific issues to grasp and turn back around...in a lawsuit.

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 14:22 pm

scoutyjones2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:35 am

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 07:08 am

JaseMan wrote: ↑30 Sep 2025 18:45 pm I swear I heard Bernie say a few years back that shildt was screaming and demeaning people. Mo did say something in that interview that it was advised by legal to keep a lid on it.

Are labor laws different in St. Louis? Screaming and demeaning doesn't seem like a legal reason to have to fire someone. Depending on how bad it was, it certainly could've been grounds for firing and something they thought they had to do for the sake on the organization. I'm just not sure how it would be a legal issue.

Oh and thanks so much for providing info. Really appreciate it.

Lordy, stupidity of CT continues to worsen...

Missouri follows the Employment-At-Will doctrine. This means that both the employer and employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, as long as there is:

No employment contract being broken
No discrimination under civil rights laws (based on race, color, age, national origin, religion, ancestry, sex, or physical/mental disability)
No merit laws apply, or
The state’s limited public policy exception does not apply.

What exactly do you mean by stupidity continues to worsen?

ronnie76 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2025 16:11 pm Mo's comments for reference.


"There were certainly reasons why we had to make that decision. I don't think the public forum is the right place for it. I do feel like I get beaten up for it. Legally, I was advised that as an employer, there is only so much that can be said. I don't want to beat around the bush. I know we had to make a decision. I believe it was the right decision. People can argue that they don't think it was. However, I'm sure that someday more of this will come to light. I'm sure some of the people who worked with me or under him might have some things to say as well. But to me, it's what has happened, happened," Mozeliak said.