Doctor MJ wrote:
The CBA is relevant when we're talking about whether, say, it's against the rules to trade a pregnant player. Some things should have been very simple to spell out and so to the extent the WNBA didn't do so, it's on them.
As stated previously, just because the I say "it's on" the WNBA, doesn't mean I'm saying Hammon or anyone else is absolved of all behavior, but if simply trading a player while pregnant was going to get a team successfully sued, the WNBA should have made that clear in policy because otherwise there's really no precedent that I'm aware of that prohibits contract trades, and coaches/GMs are literally hired to make their team win with the rules as they've been laid out.
But I agree with you that the CBA is not the only concern when talking about under-the-table benefits.
Re: "if Hamby told the Aces she was pregnant and then they traded her". Well, I think that's clear cut the order of the event, but it doesn't prove that the one caused the other.
Keep in mind that we're talking about a timeline that's something like:
August 2022 - Hamby tells Aces she's pregnant
January 2023 - Aces trade Hamby; sign Candace Parker
While it's very plausible that they were looking to trade away Hamby the moment they were informed of her pregnancy, the fact it didn't happen for many months afterward, and then was only done as part of maneuvering to get another star on the team. If that's all the information there's direct evidence for, then that's really not enough, because January seems like it would make sense regardless of the pregnancy.
As I say: Different if they have proof, but if they don't, it's a non-starter based on the history of sports trades.
Re: "pregnancy didn't affect her ability to perform her job duties". Well first, my understanding is that the Aces are denying the pregnancy was the reason she was traded, so right there it really becomes a question of what evidence there is that the Aces are lying. If they get caught in lies, there should certainly be punishments.
Second: The reality is that we can't actually say definitively that a pregnancy didn't affect ability to perform. Just because a player shows up doesn't mean they're playing up to their capacity. And this is why there should be a clear cut rule about trading pregnant players, because even when there's a perfectly good basketball explanation (Candace Parker), there's ample reason to believe that any team would consider a pregnancy a damage to their asset. They'll never say so publicly if their smart, but we should assume that they're all thinking it.
Again, your fixation on the CBA is completely misguided and meaningless. IT IS IRRELEVANT in this case. These are federal laws we are talking about here, a private corporation such as the WNBA cannot simply put provisions or rules in their CBA that violate federal employment laws. And even the idea of having the type of policy you are suggesting simply existing with what teams could or couldn't do wrt pregnant players would likely be a violation of title VII by itself.
Again, you keep focusing on optics for some reason, the timeline is irrelevant. If the WNBA does not immediately settle, then Hamby's lawyers are going to subpoena all team communications. That means every single email exchanged, if front office has a work phone or get reimbursed to use their personal phone for work they can subpoena text messages exchanged between employees, they will interview all sorts of staff members and players, and turn everything upside down. This is likely where the CBA actually matters as I'm sure the Aces committed all sorts of violations under the table (and some could potentially be actual crimes too depending on tax stuff or accounting practices). But again, the timeline with pregnancy announcement and trade time won't matter because there's going to be something found in the communications if things get to that point.
AND OF COURSE THE ACES ARE DENYING THEY TRADED HER BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT
If they were to admit that then the case is just over and done with and they are guilty. With your last paragraph, you are not understanding what conduct detrimental to job performance means legally. You are focusing on how the player would produce in game which is how a basketball team would look at "performance", not the law. WNBA contracts do not stipulate that the player must sprint as hard as she can on defense, must grab 5 rebounds per game, must make 75% of her FTs, or anything like that. WNBA contracts stipulate that the player participate in all team activities, practices, and games, attend all team functions, participate in all functions mandated by the WNBA. So again, nothing you brought up is legally relevant here on the basis of how a pregnancy would affect Hamby's ability to perform her job. Of course teams are going to look at pregnant players differently and think about that all the time. The difference is you cannot act on those thoughts (without breaking the law) and even discussing them where it's documented in writing or anything would be an unfathomably stupid decision that could get you sued.
Now obviously everything hinges on being able to prove these things of course. But, considering the WNBA did an 'investigation" where they did levy punishment I think it's obvious there is some level of provable impropriety that they are aware of, they just didn't think this would escalate. Attorney's are going to go hard questioning all the lower level administrative employees, current players, front office staff, former players, former front office staff, everybody. All it takes is one disgruntled employee, one former player or employee, one person who is scared of getting in trouble, or one person with strong morals and the WNBA and Aces are in serious ****.
