Apart from the the fact the JM has been cleared of sexually offensive language, Carneiro is asking for a public apology from JM. Is she naive or what else?? Surely she must know that in law public apologies are considered admissions of guilt. She's got a barrister, hasn't she...... Dodgy.

 

Mez

pretty much maintained my stance on this from day one and see no reason to change it. This case is purely about a woman in a man dominated field of work being treated like any one else and not being happy about it. Her actions have actually set progress made (largely only by chelsea) back years. What club is going to be keen to employ a female match day doctor if they feel that they have to tip toe around her. equality means Equality. people should be given jobs based on there ability and treated based on there work gender shouldn't come in to it 

There must be something we don't know about, either a txt or an email where sexist language has been used.

There's no way mourinho's interview and the clubs actions could be perceived as sexist, bearing in mind jon Fearn was treated exactly the same.

I have a feeling there is something the club don't want to come out, which is why roman had his top brass there to sort it out yesterday.

For caneiro to have refused an out of court settlement, she must have something pretty substantial up her sleeve, or she is being extremely poorly advised.

Edited March 8, 201610 yr by big blue

There must be something we don't know about, either a txt or an email where sexist language has been used.

There's no way mourinho's interview and the clubs actions could be perceived as sexist, bearing in mind jon Fearn was treated exactly the same.

I have a feeling there is something the club don't want to come out, which is why roman had his top brass there to sort it out yesterday.

For caneiro to have refused an out of court settlement, she must have something pretty substantial up her sleeve, or she is being extremely poorly advised.

 

 

My money is on greed and over believing the power of the press

There must be something we don't know about, either a txt or an email where sexist language has been used.

There's no way mourinho's interview and the clubs actions could be perceived as sexist, bearing in mind jon Fearn was treated exactly the same.

I have a feeling there is something the club don't want to come out, which is why roman had his top brass there to sort it out yesterday.

For caneiro to have refused an out of court settlement, she must have something pretty substantial up her sleeve, or she is being extremely poorly advised.

Neither side has commented and another hearing date is to come, June I think.

I think there must be something not being made obvious, she has to be confident, though she certainly doesn't look it.

 

Just finished reading Alan Sugar's new book and he writes about the constructive dismissal case with his company involving Stella English from the Apprentice.

She claimed that she wasn't employed to the full of her abilities so she walked out because she didn't have an alternative.

Sugar refused to settle out of court and won the case because he proved she was offered adequate employment in his organisation.

Reminded me of Carneiro.

 

Mez

So the case has got under way today and already it's been revealed chelsea offered her £1.2m to settle..£1.2m!!!!! And she said no....it was more than I thought and again makes you question her so called motives...fcuk me, being made a millionaire for falling out with your boss and refusing to return to work? Where do I sign up?

yeah not sure why she decided not to return and/or accept the money when jose left. would have been nice to have her on our medical team, but hey ho. 

Who'd go near her now?

Who'd go near her now?

 

are we talking in a professional capacity?   

Yes ;)

Am i being old fashioned but i don't really see the issue with this whole case. Surely Fearn was in the exact same situation? Seems like Eva is using her gender as a way to claim sexism and what not for a quick buck. 

She should be congratulated for refusing to be bought off.

She should be congratulated for refusing to be bought off.

 

 

because my like button doesn't work, I have to say         

She should be congratulated for refusing to be bought off.

 

Or is she just holding out for more money 

She should be congratulated for refusing to be bought off.

Other than financial compensation what do you think she is hoping to gain from this trial?

Very hard to word that without it sounding like a personal dig so please don't take it that way.

This has been a more contentious issue than the Jose sacking on this forum so I'm eager for things to stay civil.

I think any chance of civility towards or empathy for carneiro herself has long gone on this thread / forum.

 

towards me? I don't think there has been a problem. in any case I understand what some posters here think of my position whether they say it or not- that either I am being very naive OR that I am taking up contrarian positions for an argument / the satisfaction of being 'righteous'. but I accept that and I don't really care to convince otherwise. (not saying that you think those things of me, but some almost certainly do)

 

so what does she hope to gain other than financial compensation?

 

as you imply- I can't know- but I can guess.

 

firstly I take issue with the question because it is framed in such a way that we should assume money is the most important thing- I don't think it is. I note that her lawyers have said she would stand to gain less than what she was offered by pursuing legal action. whether true or not, surely someone out for a quick buck would go for the compensation rather than risk losing a public court case, potentially costing her money as well as a public humliation? I think it shows great character to turn down such a large sum.

 

I think for her going to court to prove that she did her job correctly, to win an acceptance that it was wrong of jose to criticise her decision making and to determine whether she was on the receiving end of sexual discrimination means something. she was effectively demoted for doing her job properly and wants the law to make it clear that is not an acceptable manner for a company to conduct itself. taking a payoff would mean none of these things would happen.

 

all through the season I've read page after page of criticism for the way the club is run because they signed a player and loaned him out, like they have done dozens of times in the past. people even questioned their support based on these types of decisions. yet there has been so little criticism of the shameful way chelsea behaved in allowing fearn and carneiro to be publicly attacked and subsequently demoted despite the fact that we have people on these boards lining up to tell the world how much they care about the way the club is run. in fact the tone has been to attack one of the wronged individuals, call her a slut, who is only in it for the money and who should-in effect- know her place. I find it interesting that often the people who are absolutely adamant no sexism has taken place pair those opinions with criticisms of carneiro that I would describe as sexist.

 

I find it incredibly dispiriting- without question it has been the worst part of a terrible season in so many respects.

I think any chance of civility towards or empathy for carneiro herself has long gone on this thread / forum.

 

towards me? I don't think there has been a problem. in any case I understand what some posters here think of my position whether they say it or not- that either I am being very naive OR that I am taking up contrarian positions for an argument / the satisfaction of being 'righteous'. but I accept that and I don't really care to convince otherwise. (not saying that you think those things of me, but some almost certainly do)

 

so what does she hope to gain other than financial compensation?

 

as you imply- I can't know- but I can guess.

 

firstly I take issue with the question because it is framed in such a way that we should assume money is the most important thing- I don't think it is. I note that her lawyers have said she would stand to gain less than what she was offered by pursuing legal action. whether true or not, surely someone out for a quick buck would go for the compensation rather than risk losing a public court case, potentially costing her money as well as a public humliation? I think it shows great character to turn down such a large sum.

 

I think for her going to court to prove that she did her job correctly, to win an acceptance that it was wrong of jose to criticise her decision making and to determine whether she was on the receiving end of sexual discrimination means something. she was effectively demoted for doing her job properly and wants the law to make it clear that is not an acceptable manner for a company to conduct itself. taking a payoff would mean none of these things would happen.

 

all through the season I've read page after page of criticism for the way the club is run because they signed a player and loaned him out, like they have done dozens of times in the past. people even questioned their support based on these types of decisions. yet there has been so little criticism of the shameful way chelsea behaved in allowing fearn and carneiro to be publicly attacked and subsequently demoted despite the fact that we have people on these boards lining up to tell the world how much they care about the way the club is run. in fact the tone has been to attack one of the wronged individuals, call her a slut, who is only in it for the money and who should-in effect- know her place. I find it interesting that often the people who are absolutely adamant no sexism has taken place pair those opinions with criticisms of carneiro that I would describe as sexist.

 

I find it incredibly dispiriting- without question it has been the worst part of a terrible season in so many respects.

A fair enough argument, although not one I necessarily agree with (in terms of carneiro's motives through all of this)

Why didn't Jose apologize publically in the first place is beyond me. What did he gain by not doing it? Principle? It was a massively stupid incident in the first place. Incident where Jose didn't need to react the way he did. Totally unprofessional. I'm 100% sure he regrets it but is stubborn.

Maybe he wanted to show the players compromise is never good...? No idea.

I'm not saying Jose was wrong about the situation with Hazard BUT everything after that he handled like an idiot.

Wish this stuff was just played out with the club and Eva and her representation.

No one has a right or wrong answer and it's all basically speculation and opinion pieces you read regarding this.

We should stick to the football as fans IMO.

Wish this stuff was just played out with the club and Eva and her representation.

No one has a right or wrong answer and it's all basically speculation and opinion pieces you read regarding this.

We should stick to the football as fans IMO.

 

 

No it's not.  The incident was public and seen by the viewing public at large.  There is no speculation involved in this.  She was prevented from doing her job, as instructed by the referee of the match.   And subsequently she was demoted. So was Fearn.  The fact that he chose to knuckle under is irrelevant to Eva's case.

 

G3.7 has summed it up splendidly, so there is no point in my pontificating at length.

Eva Carneiro legal document: Chelsea director Marina Granovskaia texted Carneiro and said "you've done nothing wrong"

Chelsea doctor Eva Carneiro 'heard José Mourinho insult her'

Former Chelsea manager called Carneiro ‘daughter of a whore’ in Portuguese when she ran on to pitch, tribunal hears

 

Chelsea’s former team doctor clearly heard José Mourinho call her a “daughter of a whore” in Portuguese when she ran on to the pitch during a Premier League match to treat an injured player last year, an employment tribunal has heard.

Dr Eva Carneiro, 42, is claiming unfair dismissal against Chelsea and sex discrimination and harassment against the club’s former manager following the incident against Swansea last August.

 

Lawyers for Chelsea revealed that Carneiro was offered £1.2m to settle her claims, but has instead decided to take the case to open hearing. In a skeleton argument, they told the tribunal it was far more than “she could realistically recover even if she succeeded on all her claims”.

 

Carneiro’s decision to run on to the Stamford Bridge pitch to treat Eden Hazard meant the team was temporarily reduced to nine men and Mourinho afterwards called her and the physiotherapist Jon Fearn, who went on with her, “impulsive and naive”. She did not appear on the bench again for first-team duties and later parted company with the club.

In a skeleton argument referring to Mourinho, Carneiro’s lawyers claimed: “This is a tale of two employees: one good, one bad. The bad employee forces the good employee out of the job of her dreams and the employer does nothing to stop it. The bad employee berates, sexually harasses and demotes the good employee for carrying out her professional duties.”

 

In the first day of what is expected to be a 10-day hearing at Croydon employment tribunal, lawyers for the club and its former manager and those representing Carneiro made clear a key part of the case would hinge on the precise meaning of Portuguese swearing. An expert in Portuguese swearing will give evidence in the case. Mourinho is also expected to give evidence, as will the Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, and Chelsea director Marina Granovskaia, one of Roman Abramovich’s most trusted advisers.

 

The three-person tribunal heard that Mourinho called Carneiro “filha da puta” as she went on to the pitch to treat Hazard in the match against Swansea. Mourinho, in his witness statement denies that and claims he shouted “filho da puta”, which means son of a whore, and that it was not directed at the doctor.

 

“As she ran on to the pitch she heard clearly from behind her the words filha da puta,” said Mary O’Rourke QC, appearing for the claimant. “She’s a Portuguese speaker. It was not filho da puta, it was filha da puta … you say filha da puta when you are denigrating a woman. He is saying it to the back of the claimant who is doing something he didn’t like … that is the context.”

Daniel Stilitz QC, appearing for Chelsea, said Mourinho’s evidence was that he shouted filho da puta.

 

“Filho da puta is a phrase he often uses,” he said, adding that it meant son of a bitch. “There is no sexist connotation.”

He said that Mourinho used the phrase frequently at Chelsea’s training ground and during matches.

Chelsea and Mourinho will also argue that Carneiro would still be in her job if she had not resigned and said that she had been “provocative” and “refused to engage in steps to rebuild her relationship with Mourinho”.

 

“The claimant’s suggestion that Mr Mourinho’s language was gendered and targeted specifically at her is plainly unwarranted in the light of the footage,” their lawyers said in a skeleton argument circulated to the press. “Indeed she did not allege that the language used was discriminatory until well after the event. Mr Mourinho’s language was, again, far from unusual in the context.”

 

They also allege that in talks with Granovskaia, Carneiro said she was willing to “draw a line under what happened” in exchange for demands including a 40% pay rise to £400,000, a bonus scheme, an immediate return to the bench and a “substantial payment” in compensation for distress.

 

Mourinho was in charge at Chelsea until his sacking last December following a run of poor form for the team. He has since taken over at Manchester United. He is expected to give evidence on Monday.

The case moved to the full tribunal after agreement was not reached at a private hearing in January. It is expected to run until 24 June and during the hearings, witness statements and documents – including texts and emails – are likely be made public.

Mourinho was cleared of using discriminatory language towards Carneiro following an investigation by the Football Association.

 

Afterwards, Carneiro and the FA’s independent board member, Dame Heather Rabbatts, criticised the governing body for not interviewing the doctor as part of its investigation.

Carneiro has also had backing from Fifa’s medical chairman, Michel D’Hooghe, who contacted the doctor to offer his support and that of the world governing body. He has backed Carneiro’s insistence that she was simply doing her job.

The hearing continues on Tuesday when Carneiro is due to begin giving evidence.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/06/chelsea-doctor-eva-carneiro-jose-mourinho-insult-filha-filho-da-puta-tribunal-told

Edited June 6, 201610 yr by enigma

Wow, looks like it could messy for Jose. From the above article, it sounds like the club/Marina were backing Eva. I'm sure his new club won't be impressed with this coming out.

And in other news, a Portuguese swearing expert has found work for the first time ever