There are a lot of people convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the club has handled this appallingly. Personally, I wouldn’t bet against it. But it’s less clear to me what the club should have done, and without knowing the facts I’m not sure I’m comfortable getting the pitchfork out. Likewise, I can’t really say I feel like defending the club. I’ve been uncomfortable with the way they have handled other business lately so my gut tells me things are awry. Worse, in so many of these types of instances even though I consider the instinct of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to come from the right place, it’s so often the victim who comes off worse while the perpetrator gets to comfortably more on with their lives. Things are always manifestly weighted in favour of the people in power. Does that mean that we should throw the benefit of the doubt out the window? I really don’t know.
Let’s assume the reporting by the Herald Sun is accurate - notwithstanding that assuming a story in a Murdoch tabloid based on unsubstantiated rumours is already an uncomfortable place to start. But, let’s say it is and:
i. Lyon had a few too many drinks at the Christmas party (media reports have called the Christmas Party boozy, which seems kinda superfluous).
ii. Lyon said the gross thing about ‘budding boobs’ to a young woman. For the record: ew.
iii. The young woman was rightfully appalled, and it made her continued employment with FFC untenable.
iv. The young woman – and possibly another person – lodged a complaint with the club.
What do you do at that point? Do you sack Lyon straight up? I’m not an employment law expert, I don’t know FFC’s policies or Lyon’s employment contract. But my guess is you’d at least need to do an investigation first. Which I think FFC did.
So, let’s say there’s an investigation and it finds Lyon was acting like a creep the night of the Christmas Party. Again, speculation at this point, but let’s assume it was true.
So, what happens now? Is saying something inappropriate at a Christmas party a sackable offence? If it wasn’t part of a pattern of behaviour, then my guess is that it’s doubtful. Does FFC have an ethical obligation to sack Lyon on the basis of one incident? Maybe, I’m not sure. In the circumstances where the law and ethics are unclear, it seems like FFC would have an obligation to mediate. Which it sounds like they did.
The parties came to a resolution, the matter was legally settled, and the an NDA was executed.
From there, it gets fuzzy.
• Did others at the club act inappropriately to the woman in the interim?
• Did the club pressure the woman into the settlement and the NDA?
• Was the sum a ‘low five figure’ sum as first reported, or a six figure sum as subsequently reported? On one level it doesn’t matter, but perhaps it speaks to the magnitude of the behaviour of Lyon or the club (no not)?
• Somewhere in there the AFL had a look and didn’t take action. Did they do their job properly?
• Somewhere along the line it seems the victim was unhappy with the way it all played out. Was she unhappy at the time she accepted the settlement, or did it bubble up to the surface later?
I’m not sure any of these things are clear.
The club has investigated and taken action (or not), the AFL has investigated and not take action, legally the matter has been dealt with. Lyon doesn’t want to quit. You’re on the Board. What do you advise?
