NY isn’t a community property state. If she files in NYC she will likely get more than half (speaking from what I know personally for several women of very well to do men.) Judges in NYC are very generous to the wives in these cases. You don’t have to live in NYC to file their either.
She may like her life and not even divorce him clearly she knows what he is all about.
^Well she has tried to divorce him before. This would certainly be the nail on the coffin for many.
@emilybee That is good news for her.
What happens to his personal items that were at NBC? His lawyer comes to get them or does NBC box them up and mail them to him?
NBC will settle quickly. they don’t want the discovery as this could lead to issues with reporting to the SEC.
Absolutely. No way NBC would settle with a confidentiality clause only to have the whole thing aired in civil court, under a court order to testify.
According to reports, he’s asking for $30 million.
And they’ll go find a cheaper anchor.
It is absolutely absurd that someone in this situation should be given $30 million. We live in a crazy, upside down world. Ridiculous.
Hey! I always wanted my husband to be a “failed football coach”. Good enough to get hired but not good enough to stay–just buy out the contract.
He doesn’t deserve it.
I don’t find it absurd at all. It’s a slightly higher percentage than his annual salary but who knows what was packed into that, and I highly doubt NBC wants it dragged out in courts. It’s a no-win situation and in the courts things could swing wildly one way or another. I think it’s absurd that someone can actually earn north of $25 million a year for delivering news or tossing a ball around but that’s the world we live in.
Especially when these news anchors do reports denouncing income inequality.
The big NYC employment attorneys are quoted thinking he’ll get a large severance package, for various reasons. Im guessing he has a good clause in his current contract. With his supposed past history, maybe for any termination, regardless of morals.
So how did that contract negotiation go?
NBC exec: OK, Matt, here’s your contract that pays you $25 million per year. Just sign right…
Lauer: And one more thing. I want a button on my desk that locks the door. You know, for, um, security.
NBC exec: Hmmm…alright.
I’m not an employment attorney, but…
I assume $30 million is the amount he would have received if he hadn’t been fired and worked until the end of his contract. It’s interesting that this is his opening demand.
I’ve no idea if he’ll get it or get it without litigation. It depends in part on whether there’s a morals clause in his contract, the exact wording of it if there is, and other circumstances.
Why is the existence of a morals clause determinative? If there is no morals clause then he still is in violation of company policy – which NBC cited in their press release-- so he still would be fired for cause. Technically under most employment agreements that entitles him to nothing.
And as noted upthread NBC can just ignore the contract and give him a pay out like FOX did with Ailes and O’Reilly.
I didn’t say it was determinative, but it matters, IMO. YMMV. Not all violations of company policy amount to grounds for termination.
A hypothetical: assume that all of the actions Lauer allegedly committed occurred prior to 2016 when he reportedly signed his current contract. Assume that at least some complaints about Lauer’s conduct were made before 2016 to NBC management. NBC chose to do nothing about them and gave Lauer a new contract. Lauer argues that he can’t be fired for the conduct because NBC management knew about allegations and still extended his conduct. Assume further that none of the acts complained of occurred after his contract was signed. What should happen?
I don’t purport to know. I’m just pointing out we don’t know all of the facts. NBC’s statement says that no complaints about Lauer had been made to “current” management. To me, that implies that there may have been complaints made to prior management. Assume for the sake of argument that there were and NBC nevertheless gave Lauer a new contract. Can the new management fire Lauer for actions that occurred before his current contract?
Some “talent” does refuse to sign broad morals clauses, especially when the talent has problems. The fact that a morals clause doesn’t exist or is narrower than the “typical” clause is, IMO, relevant.
All speculation. Let’s wait for the facts.
We, the general public, will never have all the facts.