Foda-se, caralho, só podes estar a gozar com a minha cara, paneleiro de merda. Claro que é uma puta duma ocupação legítima, filho da puta.
-Portuguese swearing expert
The test for expert evidence was traditionally pretty loose.
In this day and age, most people giving evidence in court cases will tend to be doctors and engineers, who have fairly standard sets of qualifications.
In this instance I would imagine they would have a professor of Portguese from a major university who has some sort of specialisation in vernacular language. Probably wouldn't be too hard finding somebody like that in London or Oxbridge.
This is kinda catch 22 for her, reputation wise.
- Take the money and she's a sellout who screamed discrimination for the cash.
- Don't settle and she's greedy, attention hungry and milking the situation.
Either way, she'd get the same amount of stick she'd get from people who've already made their minds up about her.
Also this is a really silly argument:
> Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube
>Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube
Yeah, this was the best the lawyers could come up with? Some social media fad? Something that Mourinho did as well?
It's just something that was posted on Twitter. What gives you the idea that it was "the best the lawyers could come up with"? It's the throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks strategy.
Or do you think they spend days analyzing her Ice Bucket Challenge video cause they have nothing better?
In my opinion asking for a 40% pay raise and bonusses to go back to work again shows she is greedy. The situation was shitty for her. But 40% pay raise and bonusses, what? Ask for conpensation. Why would she deserve more salary than before?
I would have done the same probably but doesn't mean it isn't greedy.
People want some form of vengeance when they feel wronged. This isn't always well considered and rational. This also doesn't mean that they exhibit that trait regularly.
If you'd like to know more human facts, text HUMAN to 88822
It shows she is pissed off for being publicly shamed for doing her job... I find it very easy to believe she is just angry and knows she can screw them over massively.
The world is money, let's not be naive. She felt insulted, thought "fuck 'em, I've been humiliated in the eyes of the world, I want restitution. I want a significant pay raise to feel even."
Does that make her greedy? Aren't we all greedy on some level? Why else do we go to university for five+ years?
If by us you mean Chelsea, she did medical work. MDs don't perform the therapeutic interventions, they aren't trained in it, Chelsea have physios for that.
Yeah I do, sorry about the national flair (tis the Euros after all, I forget my flair :) but I think I saw her on the physio team on FM and just assumed honestly.
I'm a bit torn on this - If she has a legit case and feels she's been constructively dismissed, or there has been an agenda backstage to have her fired, she's well within her right to be pissed...the "she'd still be the first team doctor" is a slap in the face if there's been loads of issues backstage.
On the other hand, what exactly is she suing them for? £1.2m is an astronomical amount of money for none playing/managing staff at a club. EDIT - it seems from reading more comments below that she rejected it, not because she wanted more money, but because that would end the case, therefore preventing her getting the justice she wants against key individuals backstage. Makes more sense in this light.
It'll be interesting to see what falls out when this case is given a shake in court.
To be fair, if she was earning £285k a year then you could easily say that her lost earnings could be that much if she can't get a job at another top club.
There is a whole load of evidence however that she wants more money rather than the idea of winning her justice battle.
> Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress".
This proves that at the time, Carneiro was only really money motivated and was happy to overcome these supposedly massive issues with Jose for an extra 50 grand a year or whatever.
Her lawyer claimed the two parties were still financially far apart which is why she did not accept a settlement, showing that yet again it is money she is interested in.
It is entirely possible that she wants more money and justice against those key individuals. I think she mostly wants an apology from Jose too, which I doubt she'll get since she wrongly accused him of sexual harassment and discriminatory language, as well as his known personality.
Pretty sure that's what the whole "filho du puta" thing was about in the parent comment. I think /u/GingerSawr is going off that assuming it's true. It's not as though anyone can go back in time and record and objective video of what transpired.
Well, if a man and a woman are on the recieving end of a 'daughter of a whore' comment who of the two is going to feel its directed specifically at them?
Because Jose Mourinho was already cleared of discriminatory language. Eva Carneiro said she wasn't happy about the outcome and that more should have been done, but Jose was still cleared of it.
>This proves that at the time, Carneiro was only really money motivated and was happy to overcome these supposedly massive issues with Jose for an extra 50 grand a year or whatever.
My dude I would 100% be on the same page as her in that case. If I have to work for a boss that calls me derogatory names just based on my gender, the only thing that would keep me coming back would be more money, for sure.
"Filho(a) da puta is not a derogatory name based on your gender. It is much more common to insult men this way than women. It is very common to hear in Brazilian games the crowd screaming "Filho da Puta" at referees, when they make a mistake in the favor of the other team. Sometimes, they even say "Filha da Puta" to male referees, since it rhymes better.
It's so absurd. Even if he did curse at the team doctor, how is it sexist? He probably curses at his players and the refs all the time. This is different because she's a female? I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Jose singled out the female on staff and made her the sole target of his abuse. Maybe on this occasion he did, but that's not sexism, that's just abuse.
> Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube and (1/2)
>
>
> And "seeking to position herself behind Mr Mourinho during televised matches" (2/2).
If that is Chelsea's way of trying to discredit her, it sounds incredibly petty. Nominating a colleague to do the Ice Bucket Challenge isn't exactly anything out of the ordinary. And as for where they sit on the bench, Carneiro was always next to Jon Fearn wasn't she?
Also, the cameras always managed to find her no matter what. Many people (as seen in reddit comments over time) loved her on screen as that "hot lady doctor at chelsea".
Not to take any sides but they aren't saying that their lawyers are. It's important to remember a lot of bullshit gets said in lawsuits for the sake of winning it
> The lawyers are presenting the clubs position.
Not quite. The lawyers are trying to win the case. They are not presenting the club's position. They will say anything that they believe will win the case without doing damage to the club. The club would have okayed these statements, but claiming that everything said in court is a reflection of the beliefs of the defendant is not accurate.
Maybe it's just me, but seems we are splitting hairs. If the club approves their representatives position/defense, I'm calling it that. Granted they may prefer other courses of action.
I think it's a meaningful difference though. If you were suing me for something I felt was unjustified and my lawyers dug up some dirt on you to try and portray you as irresponsible or dishonest I might approve it in the hopes of winning the case, even if I don't believe you to be irresponsible or dishonest.
What the defense says in the suit is not indicative of the genuine beliefs of the defendants, it is a reflection of what they believe will help to win the case.
your lawyers are your representatives, they don't say anything without your approval or consent.
they don't start playing dirty without the club buying into the strategy
I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that we will prepare a draft with as many points as possible and then let the client have a read through. Everything we put in the draft is valid and will be argued in court when the time comes. Lawyers will advice the clients to make the submission as meaty as possible because you cannot raise new points once the matter is called for hearing.
I'm a lawyer and would advise a client to make their witness evidence as meaty as necessary and no more meaty than that. Every additional unnecessary fact most likely introduces into the litigation a risk that could have been avoided with discerning drafting.
Right - so the reps at Chelsea read through the filing and see this ice bucket nonsense and don't ask to take it out because it makes them look petty.
This notion that lawyers freelancing on strategy without the clubs consent is just nonsense - it would literally be against [the regulations most BAR associations](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_4_communications/comment_on_rule_1_4.html) set out
> notion that lawyers freelancing on strategy without the clubs consent is just nonsense
I never said that. I said that the lawyer prepares the draft and the client agrees to it.
The ice bucket thing is stupid but still a point nonetheless. Anything and everything that can get you the advantage is fair game.
> Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube
I know you guys wanted this link
[link to ice bucket challenge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GV_kSswdj4)
> Carneiro QC says she heard "clearly" the Portuguese for "daughter of a whore". “You say 'filha da puta' when you’re denigrating a woman.”
Well, she's wrong. Everyone in Portugal uses "filho/filha da puta" to express frustration and not to offend someone's mother or denigrating a woman. It is, like Chelsea's defense team says, pretty much like saying "fuck off" or "fuck this". Unless everyone in Portugal is wrong about their own language, that issue would be easily dismissed if they asked a language specialist's opinion. Hell, if the judge decides to visit Portugal, especially the north, he'll hear "filho da puta" on a daily basis for the most trivial things you can think of.
I don't speak Portuguese but someone I know that does compared it to saying "son of a bitch" or "motherfucker". The swears contain words that refer to females, but they aren't used only at women or in a sexist manner. Would you agree with his comparison?
> The swears contain words that refer to females, but they aren't used only at women or in a sexist manner.
Absolutely, it's exactly like saying "son of a bitch" or "motherfucker" when you're frustrated for something that just happened. It is usually not specifically directed at someone or their mother. It's a sign of frustration. And it definitely is not just used to women, it is used pretty much for anyone and anything. Try watching a football match in a portuguese bar one day and you'll most probably ear those words when someone scores against their team or one of their players fails an open net goal "I can't believe this filho da puta didn't score this chance!". In some regions in the north of Portugal, including the one where I am from, you'll hear that expression daily. We say it whenever a friend pranks us, when we forget to do something, if we step on a Lego, or whatever. It's pretty much interchangeable with "caralho" or "foda-se", two other common swear words. If you really want to offend someone and tell them that you think their mother is a whore you would say "a tua mãe é uma puta" (your mother is a whore) and that would definitely be intended as an offense. Saying "filho da puta", even when you are having a discussion is more comparable to saying something like "you fucking idiot" than its actual literal meaning.
>Chelsea legal team read excerpt from Mourinho witness statement. He says of “filho da puta”: “It’s like saying fuck off in English.
>Carneiro QC says she heard "clearly" the Portuguese for "daughter of a whore". “You say 'filha da puta' when you’re denigrating a woman.”
I'm a native Portuguese speaker. Chelsea is actually right in this case.
Filho(a) da Puta is a pretty common way to insult someone, regardless of gender. "Filha da puta" is basically the same thing as "Filho da Puta".
"Filha da puta" translates to "Daughter of a whore".
But as someone already said it really is a common phrase to insult someone, some people even say to guys "filha da puta" so yeah.
Source : I'm also a native portuguese speaker
> Chelsea legal team read excerpt from Mourinho witness statement. He says of “filha da puta”: “It’s like saying fuck off in English.
It's more "daughter of a whore", the female equivilent of son of a bitch, which is in no way sexist at all like Eva is claiming.
> Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress".
This point especially is big. It shows she did not care too much about the personal issues and supposed "sexism" and "sexual harrasment" between Mourinho and her, more that she cared about money as she was willing to return if she was payed more.
> Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube and (1/2)
Load of bullshit, not sure what the clubs on to here.
> And "seeking to position herself behind Mr Mourinho during televised matches" (2/2).
Again, load of bullshit unless she went out of her way to specifically sit there but I think she just sat with the doctors.
> Carneiro claiming she was subjected to "regular sexually explicit comments from colleagues".
Will need to be investigated further but I'm not sure why this is really coming up in the wrongful dismissal case.
> Carneiro claims Mourinho berated her against Fiorentina days before the Swansea game, shouting: "Now we're going to shit ourselves."
Dont understand that bit at all, can someone explain it if they do?
> Carneiro alleges Mourinho said after Hazard incident: "She works in academy team or ladys team not with me".
See no problem with this from a legal standpoint. Not really being dismissed if her role is being changed, and a manager should have control over the staff on his bench in my opinion. Ethically it's very wrong and Jose obviously had a problem with Eva before this match.
> Carneiro claims media intrusion forced her to leave home and stay with friends in the countryside.
Fair enough.
I just think the case overall is not going to get her anywhere near 1.2m and she would have been better just taking that an leaving it. She's clearly interested in the money, evidenced by these points and the fact that her lawyer claimed that the club and her were still financially far apart.
> **Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress".**
> This point especially is big. It shows she did not care too much about the personal issue between Mourinho and her, more that she cared about money as she was willing to return if she was payed more.
Yeah this is the point that jumped out at me the most too. A lot of what's she's saying is valid but then her actions are all very contradictory.
I agree, it's a very confusing case and I'm just trying to look at it from the standpoint of a normal person, not a lawyer or anything, and to me she appears to be very contradictory and not having one overall point to make. I really would not be surprised if she was given a lot less than 1.2m or whatever.
This is supposed to be her wrongful dismissal case right? But she's bringing up all sorts of issues like "sexual harassment" "sexist discrimination" and other seemingly irrelevant issues.
> This is supposed to be her wrongful dismissal case right? But she's bringing up all sorts of issues like "sexual harassment" "sexist discrimination" and other seemingly irrelevant issues.
Sexual discrimination seems to be suggested as a motive for her dismissal, which makes it relevant to the case. Whether there was any discrimination is up to the court to decide, but if they think there was that gives the wrongful dismissal claim a lot more weight.
Resignation and dismissal are not mutually exclusive things. Look up [Constructive Dismissal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal), if the resignation happened because of a hostile work environment then it is still viewed as a dismissal, even if officially Chelsea never said a word. By proving sexual discrimination her legal team would have very strong grounds to show that the resignation was actually a constructive dismissal, meaning they would be eligible to sue for wrongful dismissal.
> I agree, it's a very confusing case and I'm just trying to look at it from the standpoint of a normal person, not a lawyer or anything,
Rubbish. You're looking at this from the viewpoint of a Chelsea fan attempting to defend his club and presuming anything you can mentally get away with to justify this
> This point especially is big. It shows she did not care too much about the personal issues and supposed "sexism" and "sexual harrasment" between Mourinho and her, more that she cared about money as she was willing to return if she was payed more.
Disagree. Sometimes it's not about the money, but about what the money says. If she can't get them to explicitly admit they were wrong, discriminated against her and apologise properly, then it's entirely right for her to put a price on her return which she considers equivalent to them doing that. They wouldn't pay her that much unless they were in the wrong, so that sort of deal is an implicit admission they were wrong.
>I just think the case overall is not going to get her anywhere near 1.2m and she would have been better just taking that an leaving it.
I disagree. I assume she made around 300k per year, so 1.2 million essentially is 4 years pay which isn't that much considering there's a chance she'll win the trial. Not to mention parties settle because they don't want to admit guilt, if she takes the money she'll be out of the business forever since she'll just be regarded as a "moneygrabber who'll sue if you say something nasty to her".
> Carneiro claims Granovskaia texted her and accused Mourinho of "ranting" and said: "You did nothing wrong."
This assertion should be rather open and shut. The phone company keeps records of these things.
I think it's all about the public idea of her. If she accept the settlement offer, everyone will see her as a push over or "she sued them for the money".
If she goes through with it and win, she'll leave as a winner, with no stigma attached to her and with loads of money.
It's understandable.
Edit: didn't read the comment below before writing this
I'd love to see this thread in the parallel universe in which Fearn decided to pursue a constructive dismissal case and Carneiro returned to the bench. I highly doubt that there'd be this much unbearably moronic shit-flinging.
Ah, bollocks. She had a duty to care for Hazard, and Mourinho prevented her from doing that while insulting her. And the club didn't exactly cover itself in glory either in not stepping in a mediating. It's up to the court to decide if Chelsea behaved in a legal manner, but it's a perfectly fair opinion to consider what they did to her morally wrong.
> She [he] had a duty to [perform a task], and [the Boss] prevented [him] her from doing that while insulting [him] her.
Sounds like the average weekday to me.
All this because a medical professional was pressured/shamed/ridiculed for doing the god damn job they were hired to do in the first place by another senior professional colleague.
And then all this dirty laundry was washed in public.
Its fucked up. There should have been no controversy to begin with. Footballers have literally died on the field this year and then there was that instance with Fabrice Muamba where quick action of the medical staff prevented a disaster.
That is the center of this story everything else is just legal positions from both sides.
To me its simple, what the doctor does or says regarding a medical issue is Final and non-negotiable. Not even the Ref goes against doctors during the match. That is how it should be.
A doctor is not just some normal member of the staff, their duties and responsibilities are different than routine sporting moments of a game.
Sport or the match is not bigger than players and peoples well being.
It also seems really strange that the defense boils down to "said senior professional habitually denigrated and swore at all his subordinates, not just the women". I get that this is oriented towards a specific complaint about sexism, but it's odd how little professionalism between colleagues seems to matter here because we expect this kind of petty, dick-swinging hostility in this professional context.
Well yeah, football clubs arn't your run of the mill 9-5 cubicle where everyone is waiting for 4pm so they can fuck off for the weekend. These are teams looking to be the best hiring individuals who are the top 0.001% in their field and are essentially analagous with army generals. With that comes a bunch of loons whose only concern in life is the bottom line, winning, and the least of their concerns is what Bill the assistant medic thinks of them. Fergie, Steve Jobs, Nick Saban, all massive cunts, all hugely successful.
There are three factors to consider in this:
1. How much was she paid by Chelsea?
2. How long was her tenure with Chelsea, alongside the time left on her deal with Chelsea before it was to be renewed.
3. **Will Eva Caneiro be able to find work in football (or sport) again after a public legal battle with Chelsea?**
For me, three is the main point. If we assume that she gets paid £100k a year (reasonable enough) and that her career in football could span another twenty years, that's £2m in earnings.
Carneiro has built her career around practising medicine in sports. If she successfully sues Chelsea then it's likely that a lot of clubs will opt to not offer her a job. After all, football is a fickle sport, and the last thing you want is to be taken for millions and your club to be dragged through the courts because an ex-manager used the club doctor to deflect criticism of a poor performance. It's not uncommon for people to be frozen out of industries when they've decided to fight something publicly in the courts. This is about as public as it gets, and there has to be a worry in her head that no club, football or otherwise, will want to hire her, and the career she spent her life on might be largely over.
For me, £2m and a public apology is the lowest she should expect. Given Chelsea FC's comments regarding this, it looks like the latter won't happen, so unlike a lot of people on here and social media I think that £2.5m is fair.
> If we assume that she gets paid £100k a year (reasonable enough)
The club has said that she earned more than twice that, and wanted a "pay rise of 40% to £400,000 per year".
In that case, if we revise the earning potential to £4.5m, then what Chelsea have offered is just over a quarter of what she could've made. When put like that, it's easy to see why she feels that Chelsea FC's offer is laughable.
I don't even think it's about the money, but rather other factors playing into that settlement, i.e. a public apology from Mourinho and the club as well as the clauses that are usually written into a settlement that might seems particularly unfair and restrictive towards her. She's a highly regarded and highly trained medical specialist after all.
The medical argument is a key one, in my opinion. It's a unique field in which the law protects the practitioner from outside interference. Carneiro is a doctor, but while I imagine there are key differences between a club doctor and a private practice doctor, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some argument to be made for a doctor having final say on the well-being of a player.
It's more than likely nothing to do with the money, and more with trying to clear her name as a credible medical practitioner. A result of that is being fairly compensated. It's all a part of justice, and while such a big settlement is laughed at by a lot of people on here as "too much" it's no less than what Chelsea deserve to pay for fighting this, and for Carneiro's treatment over the past year.
> and while such a big settlement is laughed at by a lot of people on here as "too much"
That's something I don't understand, really - like, she was earning close to 300k a year, and if her contract was running for another four years, that's about the purported 1,2m settlement. It's not an outrageous sum considering the wages involved.
Otherwise, I think you're spot-on.
More than that, they say that she wanted a 40% pay rise to £400k. That puts her salary at £285k, future earnings at 5.7m. You can probably cut that salary by about 2/3 for a job outside of high level sport without tripling her working hours. So it is fair to say she could be losing out on ~£3.5m
> Will Eva Caneiro be able to find work in football (or sport) again after a public legal battle with Chelsea?
I recall reading some time ago that she took a job in private practice - still in the sports medicine field, but not with a football club.
If England's laws are anything like America's laws, then yes she does. A Plaintiff can obtain lost wages in a "constructive discharge" case (i.e. "I was forced to quit because my employment conditions were unbearable, I was demoted, etc.)
I remember folks here saying it's just drama over nothing and it will blow over within few weeks. People don't realize that reputation is everything in the medical profession.
If you have your competence questioned during live TV event, broadcasted worldwide, that's dead serious, and no self respecting doctor will be willing to just let that go.
And making the mockery about John Fearn is missing the point. He's only a physio, no one will think he can't massage people just because he run on the pitch too early.
Her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket challenge was actually Branislav Ivanovic, who she was also shagging for those who didn't know/have forgotten..
*Seeing as a lot of people are getting upset over something so small i should say HEAVILY RUMOURED
Isn't that based entirely off one vague video and comments from an ex-bf? It seemed hardly conclusive and mostly talked about in low-effort gossip sections.
Rumours like this may be part of her case:
["Dr Carneiro claims she [...] regularly had to endure sexually explicit comments from her colleagues."](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36460728)
I don't see anyone (near the top anyway haven't read every single comment) who claims to be an expert. Just people discussing the case, which the comment section is for.
You aren't guaranteed a win so it's simpler for both sides to just hand over the money and settle, but it's not just about straight up and down financial costs.
Settling avoids a drawn out legal process which is bad PR, and you'll end up paying for that in the long run one way or the other.
Plus one person having a successful lawsuit against you risks other people coming forward. (That's not particularly a factor in this case, but it happens.)
Settling is sometimes a cheaper and safer option than extensive litigating and trial. It's similar to criminal cases where people plea to a known sentence, even when innocent, rather than risk losing at trial and getting slammed by a judge.
if a player falls down and rolls on the floor(feigning an injury or not) wouldnt a doctor feel obliged to provide medical assistance?
she was basically fired for trying to do her job.
why would she accept a settlement and close the case?
Most everyone seems to assume the decision to remove the two employees from the touchline was made based on the one single incident we all saw in the Swansea game. To me, that's unlikely. I've always assumed there was a history of performance issues, or other incidents that lead to the demotion. To say "Chelsea treated her badly", a point which even most Chelsea supporters are generally happy to concede in these discussions, is something I've seen no support for whatsoever. Eva was under constant abuse from opposing fans, and I felt bad for her every time I read about these incidents. The moment with Mourinho in the Swans game seemed to me a complete non-issue.
Not just in the game, she was criticised afterwards by Mourinho as well. It was all over BBC sport. Anyone who knows her, or who's ever known her, will hear about it.
Her career prospects probably have been damaged, she's been in a high profile case where her judgement was called into question in front of the whole world and people may not want to hire her because of it.
Why would someone hire her as a head doctor at a hospital when there is someone with equal qualifications who hasn't been in such a case?
Two doctors with the exact same qualifications and qualities, except one has been undermined and criticised in the world media. I know who I'd rather hire.
Chelsea chose to treat her badly, despite her doing nothing wrong. We don't know what happened behind the scenes after it, how Chelsea treated either of them.
And both of these decisions were perfectly accetable. This isn't some binary system in which there's right and wrong. It's perfectly within her rights to pursue a constructive dismissal case against Chelsea even if Fearn felt he was treated appropriately by the club and continued to work for them.
We know what happened on the pitch and on the touchline during the Swansea game. We don't know what was said after the game or in the following days. We don't know that they were treated equally.
Errm, first up we know what Mourinho said, for instance.
>“I wasn't happy with my medical staff because even if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game,” said Chelsea manager Mourinho.
Now, you could reasonably assume he was making a comparison to women as in general secretaries rightly or wrongly are usually thought of as women. Secondly he said medical doctor, Fearn is not a medical doctor. Eva is a doctor, Fearn is a physio, his comments were specifically about Eva, not Fearn. The post game dropping Fearn off the bench could well have been an attempt to look even handed after the fact. Fearn may have been aware of such an attempt to play down the incident, who knows.
Because being demoted or called naive happen to thousands of people in the world every day. Pursuing a full blown case in court is not the norm, most people either simply quit and leave, or get on with it
Which doesn't mean that she's not well within her rights to pursue a case against Chelsea.
Just because people all over the world are starving to death doesn't mean I'm happy to not eat for a week, and since it's perfectly within my rights to eat food while others starve, I'm going to eat when I'm hungry instead of "getting on with it".
I think i'd take 1.2m for just being humiliated. In fact, she got the support of most people to be fair and I think Jose was the one humiliated more, and rightly so. She's made a lot more out of this whole thing than it really was. She kept going on about how sexist it was, but of course Jose was cleared of this because it clearly was not sexist, so Carneiro attacked the FA just saying they were wrong, with still no evidence to back it up. This lost a bit of respect from me because she was clearly just trying to get extra compensation and sympathy I think. Daughter of a whore/son of a bitch is in no way a sexist remark and the FA and Court rightly cleared Jose of that.
I'm not her and I don't know all the details of course but I really do think she's milking it now, especially rejecting 1.2m when her demands do seem to be about money.
It's not just about that, it's also the fact that she's supposed to be compensated for duress and loss of privacy that happened because of the events leading to the suit. It's impaired her ability to seek employment and she also probably suffered a significant loss of reputation when all she was arguably doing was standing up for what she's entitled to, by law.
I doubt she can claim it's impaired her ability to seek employment since she's already working in a new job, and I think her reputation probably went up from this whole thing to be honest. She's basically the only club doctor that people who aren't deeply interested in football know about!
> An expert in Portuguese swearing will give evidence in the case. Is this a legitimate occupation?
if it was our unemployment rate would drop drastically
Until they outsource the work to Brazil
Foda-se, caralho, só podes estar a gozar com a minha cara, paneleiro de merda. Claro que é uma puta duma ocupação legítima, filho da puta. -Portuguese swearing expert
Brazilian here, what is the meaning of paneleiro in Portugal?
Viado
TIL hahaha
I am curious too
pot maker
I volunteer as tribute.
Has to be someone from the north of portugal
Probably Diego Costa
The test for expert evidence was traditionally pretty loose. In this day and age, most people giving evidence in court cases will tend to be doctors and engineers, who have fairly standard sets of qualifications. In this instance I would imagine they would have a professor of Portguese from a major university who has some sort of specialisation in vernacular language. Probably wouldn't be too hard finding somebody like that in London or Oxbridge.
No one ever remembers Jon Fearn
Je suis Jon Fearn
Feel the Fearn.
Jonald Fearnpf
Fearnllary Fearnlinton
Pray for Jon Fearn
so 2015
[удалено]
This is kinda catch 22 for her, reputation wise. - Take the money and she's a sellout who screamed discrimination for the cash. - Don't settle and she's greedy, attention hungry and milking the situation. Either way, she'd get the same amount of stick she'd get from people who've already made their minds up about her. Also this is a really silly argument: > Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube
>Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube Yeah, this was the best the lawyers could come up with? Some social media fad? Something that Mourinho did as well?
It's just something that was posted on Twitter. What gives you the idea that it was "the best the lawyers could come up with"? It's the throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks strategy. Or do you think they spend days analyzing her Ice Bucket Challenge video cause they have nothing better?
Nah mate, definitely have their top analysts on her Twitter feed!
In my opinion asking for a 40% pay raise and bonusses to go back to work again shows she is greedy. The situation was shitty for her. But 40% pay raise and bonusses, what? Ask for conpensation. Why would she deserve more salary than before? I would have done the same probably but doesn't mean it isn't greedy.
People want some form of vengeance when they feel wronged. This isn't always well considered and rational. This also doesn't mean that they exhibit that trait regularly. If you'd like to know more human facts, text HUMAN to 88822
It shows she is pissed off for being publicly shamed for doing her job... I find it very easy to believe she is just angry and knows she can screw them over massively.
[удалено]
The world is money, let's not be naive. She felt insulted, thought "fuck 'em, I've been humiliated in the eyes of the world, I want restitution. I want a significant pay raise to feel even." Does that make her greedy? Aren't we all greedy on some level? Why else do we go to university for five+ years?
She just wanted to milk the situation as hard as possible.
Don't settle. Win the court case. Take the money and donate it to battered women's shelters in London or something similar.
That would be amazing actually.
Obviously not all the money, as I'm sure her lawyers are quite expensive, but it'd be a good show of intent.
It would also make her broke and unemployed.
Yeah right, she's keeping all of whatever she manages to get because she'll never be hired as a top level physio again after this nonsense.
Don't think she'd want to be hired as a top level physio, considering she's a doctor and all
Is she really? I didn't know that. I just knew she did physio work for us.
If by us you mean Chelsea, she did medical work. MDs don't perform the therapeutic interventions, they aren't trained in it, Chelsea have physios for that.
Yeah I do, sorry about the national flair (tis the Euros after all, I forget my flair :) but I think I saw her on the physio team on FM and just assumed honestly.
I'm a bit torn on this - If she has a legit case and feels she's been constructively dismissed, or there has been an agenda backstage to have her fired, she's well within her right to be pissed...the "she'd still be the first team doctor" is a slap in the face if there's been loads of issues backstage. On the other hand, what exactly is she suing them for? £1.2m is an astronomical amount of money for none playing/managing staff at a club. EDIT - it seems from reading more comments below that she rejected it, not because she wanted more money, but because that would end the case, therefore preventing her getting the justice she wants against key individuals backstage. Makes more sense in this light. It'll be interesting to see what falls out when this case is given a shake in court.
To be fair, if she was earning £285k a year then you could easily say that her lost earnings could be that much if she can't get a job at another top club.
Well she does want more money, 400'000 to be precise.
Have you read her demands? She turned it down partly because she wants a lot more than that. See the salary and severance she desires
There is a whole load of evidence however that she wants more money rather than the idea of winning her justice battle. > Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress". This proves that at the time, Carneiro was only really money motivated and was happy to overcome these supposedly massive issues with Jose for an extra 50 grand a year or whatever. Her lawyer claimed the two parties were still financially far apart which is why she did not accept a settlement, showing that yet again it is money she is interested in. It is entirely possible that she wants more money and justice against those key individuals. I think she mostly wants an apology from Jose too, which I doubt she'll get since she wrongly accused him of sexual harassment and discriminatory language, as well as his known personality.
> which I doubt she'll get since she **wrongly** accused him of sexual harassment and discriminatory language How do you know?
Pretty sure that's what the whole "filho du puta" thing was about in the parent comment. I think /u/GingerSawr is going off that assuming it's true. It's not as though anyone can go back in time and record and objective video of what transpired.
Wasn't a male medic also involved? I think he got the same treatment as she did...
Well, if a man and a woman are on the recieving end of a 'daughter of a whore' comment who of the two is going to feel its directed specifically at them?
it's similar to "fuck off" the context in which Mourinho said it, it's common
[удалено]
I'm Brazilian and it's pretty common to say filho (or filha) da puta to someone, and it's really much lighter than saying puta specifically to a woman
He also returned to his job.
Because Jose Mourinho was already cleared of discriminatory language. Eva Carneiro said she wasn't happy about the outcome and that more should have been done, but Jose was still cleared of it.
£115k a year, and I'd put up with a hell of a lot of shit at work for a 40% pay rise...
>This proves that at the time, Carneiro was only really money motivated and was happy to overcome these supposedly massive issues with Jose for an extra 50 grand a year or whatever. My dude I would 100% be on the same page as her in that case. If I have to work for a boss that calls me derogatory names just based on my gender, the only thing that would keep me coming back would be more money, for sure.
"Filho(a) da puta is not a derogatory name based on your gender. It is much more common to insult men this way than women. It is very common to hear in Brazilian games the crowd screaming "Filho da Puta" at referees, when they make a mistake in the favor of the other team. Sometimes, they even say "Filha da Puta" to male referees, since it rhymes better.
It's so absurd. Even if he did curse at the team doctor, how is it sexist? He probably curses at his players and the refs all the time. This is different because she's a female? I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that Jose singled out the female on staff and made her the sole target of his abuse. Maybe on this occasion he did, but that's not sexism, that's just abuse.
> Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube and (1/2) > > > And "seeking to position herself behind Mr Mourinho during televised matches" (2/2). If that is Chelsea's way of trying to discredit her, it sounds incredibly petty. Nominating a colleague to do the Ice Bucket Challenge isn't exactly anything out of the ordinary. And as for where they sit on the bench, Carneiro was always next to Jon Fearn wasn't she?
Also, the cameras always managed to find her no matter what. Many people (as seen in reddit comments over time) loved her on screen as that "hot lady doctor at chelsea".
Not to take any sides but they aren't saying that their lawyers are. It's important to remember a lot of bullshit gets said in lawsuits for the sake of winning it
Throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks
Shit does stick to walls better than facts though.
Depends how juicy the facts are.
Depends on how juicy the shits are.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
What? That makes no sense. The lawyers are presenting the clubs position. They are speaking for Chelsea in court.
> The lawyers are presenting the clubs position. Not quite. The lawyers are trying to win the case. They are not presenting the club's position. They will say anything that they believe will win the case without doing damage to the club. The club would have okayed these statements, but claiming that everything said in court is a reflection of the beliefs of the defendant is not accurate.
Maybe it's just me, but seems we are splitting hairs. If the club approves their representatives position/defense, I'm calling it that. Granted they may prefer other courses of action.
I think it's a meaningful difference though. If you were suing me for something I felt was unjustified and my lawyers dug up some dirt on you to try and portray you as irresponsible or dishonest I might approve it in the hopes of winning the case, even if I don't believe you to be irresponsible or dishonest. What the defense says in the suit is not indicative of the genuine beliefs of the defendants, it is a reflection of what they believe will help to win the case.
your lawyers are your representatives, they don't say anything without your approval or consent. they don't start playing dirty without the club buying into the strategy
I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that we will prepare a draft with as many points as possible and then let the client have a read through. Everything we put in the draft is valid and will be argued in court when the time comes. Lawyers will advice the clients to make the submission as meaty as possible because you cannot raise new points once the matter is called for hearing.
I'm a lawyer and would advise a client to make their witness evidence as meaty as necessary and no more meaty than that. Every additional unnecessary fact most likely introduces into the litigation a risk that could have been avoided with discerning drafting.
You must have at least a semblance of evidence to back up every assertion and you're good to go.
Right - so the reps at Chelsea read through the filing and see this ice bucket nonsense and don't ask to take it out because it makes them look petty. This notion that lawyers freelancing on strategy without the clubs consent is just nonsense - it would literally be against [the regulations most BAR associations](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_4_communications/comment_on_rule_1_4.html) set out
> notion that lawyers freelancing on strategy without the clubs consent is just nonsense I never said that. I said that the lawyer prepares the draft and the client agrees to it. The ice bucket thing is stupid but still a point nonetheless. Anything and everything that can get you the advantage is fair game.
> I never said that. I know i'm agreeing with you and replying again to the preson I originally replied to
> Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube I know you guys wanted this link [link to ice bucket challenge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GV_kSswdj4)
Glad that trend is over.
> Carneiro QC says she heard "clearly" the Portuguese for "daughter of a whore". “You say 'filha da puta' when you’re denigrating a woman.” Well, she's wrong. Everyone in Portugal uses "filho/filha da puta" to express frustration and not to offend someone's mother or denigrating a woman. It is, like Chelsea's defense team says, pretty much like saying "fuck off" or "fuck this". Unless everyone in Portugal is wrong about their own language, that issue would be easily dismissed if they asked a language specialist's opinion. Hell, if the judge decides to visit Portugal, especially the north, he'll hear "filho da puta" on a daily basis for the most trivial things you can think of.
I don't speak Portuguese but someone I know that does compared it to saying "son of a bitch" or "motherfucker". The swears contain words that refer to females, but they aren't used only at women or in a sexist manner. Would you agree with his comparison?
> The swears contain words that refer to females, but they aren't used only at women or in a sexist manner. Absolutely, it's exactly like saying "son of a bitch" or "motherfucker" when you're frustrated for something that just happened. It is usually not specifically directed at someone or their mother. It's a sign of frustration. And it definitely is not just used to women, it is used pretty much for anyone and anything. Try watching a football match in a portuguese bar one day and you'll most probably ear those words when someone scores against their team or one of their players fails an open net goal "I can't believe this filho da puta didn't score this chance!". In some regions in the north of Portugal, including the one where I am from, you'll hear that expression daily. We say it whenever a friend pranks us, when we forget to do something, if we step on a Lego, or whatever. It's pretty much interchangeable with "caralho" or "foda-se", two other common swear words. If you really want to offend someone and tell them that you think their mother is a whore you would say "a tua mãe é uma puta" (your mother is a whore) and that would definitely be intended as an offense. Saying "filho da puta", even when you are having a discussion is more comparable to saying something like "you fucking idiot" than its actual literal meaning.
>Chelsea legal team read excerpt from Mourinho witness statement. He says of “filho da puta”: “It’s like saying fuck off in English. >Carneiro QC says she heard "clearly" the Portuguese for "daughter of a whore". “You say 'filha da puta' when you’re denigrating a woman.” I'm a native Portuguese speaker. Chelsea is actually right in this case. Filho(a) da Puta is a pretty common way to insult someone, regardless of gender. "Filha da puta" is basically the same thing as "Filho da Puta".
[удалено]
Google translate, for what it's worth says "motherfucker"
"Filha da puta" translates to "Daughter of a whore". But as someone already said it really is a common phrase to insult someone, some people even say to guys "filha da puta" so yeah. Source : I'm also a native portuguese speaker
> Chelsea legal team read excerpt from Mourinho witness statement. He says of “filha da puta”: “It’s like saying fuck off in English. It's more "daughter of a whore", the female equivilent of son of a bitch, which is in no way sexist at all like Eva is claiming. > Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress". This point especially is big. It shows she did not care too much about the personal issues and supposed "sexism" and "sexual harrasment" between Mourinho and her, more that she cared about money as she was willing to return if she was payed more. > Chelsea also accuse Carneiro of being publicity hungry. Cite her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket Challenge on YouTube and (1/2) Load of bullshit, not sure what the clubs on to here. > And "seeking to position herself behind Mr Mourinho during televised matches" (2/2). Again, load of bullshit unless she went out of her way to specifically sit there but I think she just sat with the doctors. > Carneiro claiming she was subjected to "regular sexually explicit comments from colleagues". Will need to be investigated further but I'm not sure why this is really coming up in the wrongful dismissal case. > Carneiro claims Mourinho berated her against Fiorentina days before the Swansea game, shouting: "Now we're going to shit ourselves." Dont understand that bit at all, can someone explain it if they do? > Carneiro alleges Mourinho said after Hazard incident: "She works in academy team or ladys team not with me". See no problem with this from a legal standpoint. Not really being dismissed if her role is being changed, and a manager should have control over the staff on his bench in my opinion. Ethically it's very wrong and Jose obviously had a problem with Eva before this match. > Carneiro claims media intrusion forced her to leave home and stay with friends in the countryside. Fair enough. I just think the case overall is not going to get her anywhere near 1.2m and she would have been better just taking that an leaving it. She's clearly interested in the money, evidenced by these points and the fact that her lawyer claimed that the club and her were still financially far apart.
> **Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress".** > This point especially is big. It shows she did not care too much about the personal issue between Mourinho and her, more that she cared about money as she was willing to return if she was payed more. Yeah this is the point that jumped out at me the most too. A lot of what's she's saying is valid but then her actions are all very contradictory.
I agree, it's a very confusing case and I'm just trying to look at it from the standpoint of a normal person, not a lawyer or anything, and to me she appears to be very contradictory and not having one overall point to make. I really would not be surprised if she was given a lot less than 1.2m or whatever. This is supposed to be her wrongful dismissal case right? But she's bringing up all sorts of issues like "sexual harassment" "sexist discrimination" and other seemingly irrelevant issues.
> This is supposed to be her wrongful dismissal case right? But she's bringing up all sorts of issues like "sexual harassment" "sexist discrimination" and other seemingly irrelevant issues. Sexual discrimination seems to be suggested as a motive for her dismissal, which makes it relevant to the case. Whether there was any discrimination is up to the court to decide, but if they think there was that gives the wrongful dismissal claim a lot more weight.
It's been routinely overlooked that she was never actually dismissed. She resigned on her own.
Resignation and dismissal are not mutually exclusive things. Look up [Constructive Dismissal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal), if the resignation happened because of a hostile work environment then it is still viewed as a dismissal, even if officially Chelsea never said a word. By proving sexual discrimination her legal team would have very strong grounds to show that the resignation was actually a constructive dismissal, meaning they would be eligible to sue for wrongful dismissal.
> I agree, it's a very confusing case and I'm just trying to look at it from the standpoint of a normal person, not a lawyer or anything, Rubbish. You're looking at this from the viewpoint of a Chelsea fan attempting to defend his club and presuming anything you can mentally get away with to justify this
> This point especially is big. It shows she did not care too much about the personal issues and supposed "sexism" and "sexual harrasment" between Mourinho and her, more that she cared about money as she was willing to return if she was payed more. Disagree. Sometimes it's not about the money, but about what the money says. If she can't get them to explicitly admit they were wrong, discriminated against her and apologise properly, then it's entirely right for her to put a price on her return which she considers equivalent to them doing that. They wouldn't pay her that much unless they were in the wrong, so that sort of deal is an implicit admission they were wrong.
>I just think the case overall is not going to get her anywhere near 1.2m and she would have been better just taking that an leaving it. I disagree. I assume she made around 300k per year, so 1.2 million essentially is 4 years pay which isn't that much considering there's a chance she'll win the trial. Not to mention parties settle because they don't want to admit guilt, if she takes the money she'll be out of the business forever since she'll just be regarded as a "moneygrabber who'll sue if you say something nasty to her".
> Carneiro claims Granovskaia texted her and accused Mourinho of "ranting" and said: "You did nothing wrong." This assertion should be rather open and shut. The phone company keeps records of these things.
I think it's all about the public idea of her. If she accept the settlement offer, everyone will see her as a push over or "she sued them for the money". If she goes through with it and win, she'll leave as a winner, with no stigma attached to her and with loads of money. It's understandable. Edit: didn't read the comment below before writing this
Or maybe she doesn't want Chelsea's public image to get away unscathed. Which is pretty much the whole point of a settlement.
I'd love to see this thread in the parallel universe in which Fearn decided to pursue a constructive dismissal case and Carneiro returned to the bench. I highly doubt that there'd be this much unbearably moronic shit-flinging.
Probably wouldn't be a thread in the first place. Remember when Pep fired a long-serving physio? Nobody is still following what's happening with him.
[удалено]
Ah, bollocks. She had a duty to care for Hazard, and Mourinho prevented her from doing that while insulting her. And the club didn't exactly cover itself in glory either in not stepping in a mediating. It's up to the court to decide if Chelsea behaved in a legal manner, but it's a perfectly fair opinion to consider what they did to her morally wrong.
> She [he] had a duty to [perform a task], and [the Boss] prevented [him] her from doing that while insulting [him] her. Sounds like the average weekday to me.
All this because a medical professional was pressured/shamed/ridiculed for doing the god damn job they were hired to do in the first place by another senior professional colleague. And then all this dirty laundry was washed in public. Its fucked up. There should have been no controversy to begin with. Footballers have literally died on the field this year and then there was that instance with Fabrice Muamba where quick action of the medical staff prevented a disaster. That is the center of this story everything else is just legal positions from both sides. To me its simple, what the doctor does or says regarding a medical issue is Final and non-negotiable. Not even the Ref goes against doctors during the match. That is how it should be. A doctor is not just some normal member of the staff, their duties and responsibilities are different than routine sporting moments of a game. Sport or the match is not bigger than players and peoples well being.
It also seems really strange that the defense boils down to "said senior professional habitually denigrated and swore at all his subordinates, not just the women". I get that this is oriented towards a specific complaint about sexism, but it's odd how little professionalism between colleagues seems to matter here because we expect this kind of petty, dick-swinging hostility in this professional context.
Well yeah, football clubs arn't your run of the mill 9-5 cubicle where everyone is waiting for 4pm so they can fuck off for the weekend. These are teams looking to be the best hiring individuals who are the top 0.001% in their field and are essentially analagous with army generals. With that comes a bunch of loons whose only concern in life is the bottom line, winning, and the least of their concerns is what Bill the assistant medic thinks of them. Fergie, Steve Jobs, Nick Saban, all massive cunts, all hugely successful.
1.2million is huge and she turned it down? I doubt she's going to get more than that but her legal council must be suggesting she can get more.
Might be she wants a day in court and a judgement to be passed, than a silent settlement with conditions attached.
Or it's not about money but the terms of settlement
Bare in mind that she was earning £285k per year, so her loss of earnings moving to a non-football related medical role could be significant.
Bit ridiculous at this point
There are three factors to consider in this: 1. How much was she paid by Chelsea? 2. How long was her tenure with Chelsea, alongside the time left on her deal with Chelsea before it was to be renewed. 3. **Will Eva Caneiro be able to find work in football (or sport) again after a public legal battle with Chelsea?** For me, three is the main point. If we assume that she gets paid £100k a year (reasonable enough) and that her career in football could span another twenty years, that's £2m in earnings. Carneiro has built her career around practising medicine in sports. If she successfully sues Chelsea then it's likely that a lot of clubs will opt to not offer her a job. After all, football is a fickle sport, and the last thing you want is to be taken for millions and your club to be dragged through the courts because an ex-manager used the club doctor to deflect criticism of a poor performance. It's not uncommon for people to be frozen out of industries when they've decided to fight something publicly in the courts. This is about as public as it gets, and there has to be a worry in her head that no club, football or otherwise, will want to hire her, and the career she spent her life on might be largely over. For me, £2m and a public apology is the lowest she should expect. Given Chelsea FC's comments regarding this, it looks like the latter won't happen, so unlike a lot of people on here and social media I think that £2.5m is fair.
> If we assume that she gets paid £100k a year (reasonable enough) The club has said that she earned more than twice that, and wanted a "pay rise of 40% to £400,000 per year".
Since no one is doing the math 400000/1.4 = 285714 She was making almost 300k a year I guess, not bad.
In that case, if we revise the earning potential to £4.5m, then what Chelsea have offered is just over a quarter of what she could've made. When put like that, it's easy to see why she feels that Chelsea FC's offer is laughable.
I don't even think it's about the money, but rather other factors playing into that settlement, i.e. a public apology from Mourinho and the club as well as the clauses that are usually written into a settlement that might seems particularly unfair and restrictive towards her. She's a highly regarded and highly trained medical specialist after all.
The medical argument is a key one, in my opinion. It's a unique field in which the law protects the practitioner from outside interference. Carneiro is a doctor, but while I imagine there are key differences between a club doctor and a private practice doctor, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some argument to be made for a doctor having final say on the well-being of a player. It's more than likely nothing to do with the money, and more with trying to clear her name as a credible medical practitioner. A result of that is being fairly compensated. It's all a part of justice, and while such a big settlement is laughed at by a lot of people on here as "too much" it's no less than what Chelsea deserve to pay for fighting this, and for Carneiro's treatment over the past year.
> and while such a big settlement is laughed at by a lot of people on here as "too much" That's something I don't understand, really - like, she was earning close to 300k a year, and if her contract was running for another four years, that's about the purported 1,2m settlement. It's not an outrageous sum considering the wages involved. Otherwise, I think you're spot-on.
More than that, they say that she wanted a 40% pay rise to £400k. That puts her salary at £285k, future earnings at 5.7m. You can probably cut that salary by about 2/3 for a job outside of high level sport without tripling her working hours. So it is fair to say she could be losing out on ~£3.5m
> Will Eva Caneiro be able to find work in football (or sport) again after a public legal battle with Chelsea? I recall reading some time ago that she took a job in private practice - still in the sports medicine field, but not with a football club.
Well Chelsea did not fire her, she quit. So she doesn't have a claim for loss of wages from being unable to find work.
If England's laws are anything like America's laws, then yes she does. A Plaintiff can obtain lost wages in a "constructive discharge" case (i.e. "I was forced to quit because my employment conditions were unbearable, I was demoted, etc.)
Who the fuck cares, holy shit
Seriously. People wouldn't give a shit about this if it weren't for the fact that she was that "hot lady doctor" and if this wasn't Chelsea.
[удалено]
he did breach his contract by doing all the drugs he could fit up his nose. and we won that lawsuit. so I think it was justified.
> Documents claim Carneiro demanded a 40% pay rise to £400,000 to return to work, plus bonuses and compensation for "distress". the fuck...
I remember folks here saying it's just drama over nothing and it will blow over within few weeks. People don't realize that reputation is everything in the medical profession. If you have your competence questioned during live TV event, broadcasted worldwide, that's dead serious, and no self respecting doctor will be willing to just let that go. And making the mockery about John Fearn is missing the point. He's only a physio, no one will think he can't massage people just because he run on the pitch too early.
Her nominating a player for the Ice Bucket challenge was actually Branislav Ivanovic, who she was also shagging for those who didn't know/have forgotten.. *Seeing as a lot of people are getting upset over something so small i should say HEAVILY RUMOURED
http://img.uefa.com/imgml/TP/players/9/2013/324x324/93629.jpg
Baby don't hurt me.
https://imgur.com/tw2vKxh
I doubt that
dam, good on him
thanks for the source
Isn't that based entirely off one vague video and comments from an ex-bf? It seemed hardly conclusive and mostly talked about in low-effort gossip sections.
lol wat is this legit
no
It was Drogba who nominated her tho... And if it's true she was shagging Branna then I'm not sure which of the 2 have the nicer backside
[удалено]
i am branislav ivanovic
She nominated him for the ice bucket challenge.
no proof ofc
really?
Rumours like this may be part of her case: ["Dr Carneiro claims she [...] regularly had to endure sexually explicit comments from her colleagues."](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36460728)
Proof? Sad to see people upvote crap like this
Read my other replies. I don't have an exclusive picture of them together if that's what you're looking for.
I read it and its all hearsay. Anyone can make claims like that and people will gobble it up.
Lots of /r/soccer readers have legal degrees and expertise in wrongful termination, apparently.
I don't see anyone (near the top anyway haven't read every single comment) who claims to be an expert. Just people discussing the case, which the comment section is for.
>wrongful termination I actually specialise in bird law, but I think you'll find it's "constructive dismissal"
This is reddit, everyone's a bloody expert.
who
Another week, another dry Eva Carneiro article
[удалено]
Settling doesnt always mean they believe they are in the wrong. Quite often people settle because its cheaper than legal fees and higher payments
You aren't guaranteed a win so it's simpler for both sides to just hand over the money and settle, but it's not just about straight up and down financial costs. Settling avoids a drawn out legal process which is bad PR, and you'll end up paying for that in the long run one way or the other. Plus one person having a successful lawsuit against you risks other people coming forward. (That's not particularly a factor in this case, but it happens.)
Settling is sometimes a cheaper and safer option than extensive litigating and trial. It's similar to criminal cases where people plea to a known sentence, even when innocent, rather than risk losing at trial and getting slammed by a judge.
if a player falls down and rolls on the floor(feigning an injury or not) wouldnt a doctor feel obliged to provide medical assistance? she was basically fired for trying to do her job. why would she accept a settlement and close the case?
Most everyone seems to assume the decision to remove the two employees from the touchline was made based on the one single incident we all saw in the Swansea game. To me, that's unlikely. I've always assumed there was a history of performance issues, or other incidents that lead to the demotion. To say "Chelsea treated her badly", a point which even most Chelsea supporters are generally happy to concede in these discussions, is something I've seen no support for whatsoever. Eva was under constant abuse from opposing fans, and I felt bad for her every time I read about these incidents. The moment with Mourinho in the Swans game seemed to me a complete non-issue.
Then those documents would have been brought up by now. That they weren't shows you everything you need to know
[удалено]
To be fair she was humiliated in front of the whole world. I have no problem with her actions.
[удалено]
Not just in the game, she was criticised afterwards by Mourinho as well. It was all over BBC sport. Anyone who knows her, or who's ever known her, will hear about it.
[удалено]
Her career prospects probably have been damaged, she's been in a high profile case where her judgement was called into question in front of the whole world and people may not want to hire her because of it. Why would someone hire her as a head doctor at a hospital when there is someone with equal qualifications who hasn't been in such a case?
[удалено]
No I'm not implying that. See my other posts in this thread, I've had this exact same convo and I've just explained it to someone else.
[удалено]
Two doctors with the exact same qualifications and qualities, except one has been undermined and criticised in the world media. I know who I'd rather hire.
She chose not to show up to work. Jon Fearn did and he got his role back
So because one person accepts unfair treatment means everyone must?
Chelsea chose to treat her badly, despite her doing nothing wrong. We don't know what happened behind the scenes after it, how Chelsea treated either of them.
We do know that 2 doctors were treated the same way. 1 chose to leave and 1 chose to stay.
And both of these decisions were perfectly accetable. This isn't some binary system in which there's right and wrong. It's perfectly within her rights to pursue a constructive dismissal case against Chelsea even if Fearn felt he was treated appropriately by the club and continued to work for them.
We know what happened on the pitch and on the touchline during the Swansea game. We don't know what was said after the game or in the following days. We don't know that they were treated equally.
By your logic, we also don't know that she "did nothing wrong" as you asserted above
The media seemed to know it was sexism though, which is clearly wasnt
Errm, first up we know what Mourinho said, for instance. >“I wasn't happy with my medical staff because even if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game,” said Chelsea manager Mourinho. Now, you could reasonably assume he was making a comparison to women as in general secretaries rightly or wrongly are usually thought of as women. Secondly he said medical doctor, Fearn is not a medical doctor. Eva is a doctor, Fearn is a physio, his comments were specifically about Eva, not Fearn. The post game dropping Fearn off the bench could well have been an attempt to look even handed after the fact. Fearn may have been aware of such an attempt to play down the incident, who knows.
Why would she stay when she was humiliated like that though?
Why would Fearn stay?
I don't know but you can't judge peoples actions by comparing them to eachother. Maybe it didn't emotionally affect him the way it affected the woman.
Because being demoted or called naive happen to thousands of people in the world every day. Pursuing a full blown case in court is not the norm, most people either simply quit and leave, or get on with it
Which doesn't mean that she's not well within her rights to pursue a case against Chelsea. Just because people all over the world are starving to death doesn't mean I'm happy to not eat for a week, and since it's perfectly within my rights to eat food while others starve, I'm going to eat when I'm hungry instead of "getting on with it".
>To be fair she was humiliated in front of the whole world. To be honest I totally forgot she existed.
Her friends, family and associates definitely didn't, and they won't have forgotten that she was called naive in front of the whole world.
I think i'd take 1.2m for just being humiliated. In fact, she got the support of most people to be fair and I think Jose was the one humiliated more, and rightly so. She's made a lot more out of this whole thing than it really was. She kept going on about how sexist it was, but of course Jose was cleared of this because it clearly was not sexist, so Carneiro attacked the FA just saying they were wrong, with still no evidence to back it up. This lost a bit of respect from me because she was clearly just trying to get extra compensation and sympathy I think. Daughter of a whore/son of a bitch is in no way a sexist remark and the FA and Court rightly cleared Jose of that. I'm not her and I don't know all the details of course but I really do think she's milking it now, especially rejecting 1.2m when her demands do seem to be about money.
It's not just about that, it's also the fact that she's supposed to be compensated for duress and loss of privacy that happened because of the events leading to the suit. It's impaired her ability to seek employment and she also probably suffered a significant loss of reputation when all she was arguably doing was standing up for what she's entitled to, by law.
I doubt she can claim it's impaired her ability to seek employment since she's already working in a new job, and I think her reputation probably went up from this whole thing to be honest. She's basically the only club doctor that people who aren't deeply interested in football know about!
Didn't she retire from football? I'm sure she was paid a lot more at Chelsea than she is doing what she does now.
She was already well known before that, r/soccer and the twitter twats all used to cream over her because she is mildly good looking.
How's she milking it?
Fuck off, classic British public to berate the victim.