Steve Phillips Gets Canned From ESPN
Posted by: Kate Torgovnick
Filed in:
news
11:10AM, Monday October 26th 2009
Last week, we told you the saga of ESPN baseball analyst and “Sunday Night Baseball” commentator Steve Phillips, who had a three-night stand with a production assistant and then ditched her, sending her into a tailspin of crazy, leaving notes for Phillips’ wife on his doorstep and befriending his teenage son via Facebook. Oh, but the plot thickens. Late last week, the NY Daily News discovered that Brooke Hundley, the girl in question, had actually filed a restraining order against Phillips, saying in the paperwork that that she was in “an immediate and present physical danger” and that Phillips said he “could easily get me fired” and would “ruin more than my reputation.” Yesterday, ESPN officially fired Phillips. They released a statement saying, “His ability to be an effective representative for ESPN has been significantly and irreparably damaged, and it became evident it was time to part ways.”
Not to mention the fact that this isn’t Phillips’ first case of being a total skeeze. When he was general manager of the Mets in the late ‘90s, an employee accused him of sexual harassment and another said that they’d had an affair. He was forced to take a leave of absence. This time around, Phillips will be heading to counseling. “Steve Phillips is voluntarily admitting himself to an inpatient treatment facility to address his personal issues,” his agent said. [NY Times]
The details of this case are something out of a soap opera—who knows if it’s Phillips who is crazy, if it’s Hundley who is off her rocker, or if it’s a combination of both. But what’s interesting to me here is that a major corporation let an employee go over an affair. Guys in power positions constantly have sex and hit on younger employees—hello, David Letterman. Yes, it’s a misuse of a power differential, especially if the superior then tries to strong-arm the newbie with the threat of being fired. But then again, the subordinates are adults who can make their own decisions about whom they sleep with. So what do you think? Should people in power positions be fired for having inappropriate relationships with interns and junior staffers?
Oh, and do you think ESPN would have fired him if the story hadn’t made a huge cannonball splash in the media? Or were they just trying to save face?
- Caster Semenya Will Keep Her Gold Medal
- Quickies: Soccer Player Elizabeth Lambert Really Regrets Hair-Pulling ... Really
- Prostitution Is A Family Affair For “Secret Diary Of A Call Girl” Blogger
- Sneak Peak at Brad & Angelina on Date Night (PopEater)
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
jambadreamer07
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:13 am: [report]
at the risk of sounding like a terrible person, I can’t help but notice something here. That girl is not attractive. She’s not the typical picture of an intern that has an affair with the boss. Maybe this makes people see her as more of a victim than other women who people assume are trying to use their sexuality to get ahead?
bethlynn00
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]
I think this is ESPN just trying to save face, not because of conduct. I mean seriously how many athletes, coaches, commentators, etc are/have had affairs and still maintain their jobs? This is a PR stunt and I wouldn’t be surprised that when this story dies down they secretly re-hire him.
equnsuocha
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:27 am: [report]
@Jam your observation is correct however, I think it lead him to choose her so he could control her. I am sure he didnt realize she was all bat sh!t crazy, he just figured he go for the Ugmo and do what he pleased. He is a loser.
Lolafalona
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:36 am: [report]
Ummm…I’m not sure heading to counseling is going to cure this guy of being d*bag. Good luck with that.
Perceptible
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:44 am: [report]
I’ve always thought that marital affairs should be taken more seriously from a legal stand point. Bear with me for a moment. If a marriage is a legal contract where you are making a commitment to be forever faithful and monogamous, shouldn’t there be legal implications if you violate said contract? Maybe it should go on your “permanent record” as a legal violation of some kind. Maybe it should prevent you from applying for certain types of employment.
I know this is a MUCH bigger discussion with tons more to consider, but as a basic framework I’ve always thought this was “missing” from our marriage perspectives. (Although I believe that some states have an old law on the books to punish women who cheat, but not men.)
You could go on and say that, even if you are not married, but you have an affair with someone whom you KNOW is married, then you should be considered an accomplice to a crime, and an appropriate legal “punishment” should ensue.
Again, much bigger discussion, but I kind of like this basic idea.
That said, he’s a slime ball no matter how you slice it and just because no one else is getting fired for sleeping with their interns doesn’t mean that ESPN can’t take the lead and start the trend. A good trend, IMHO. Fire them both. If they were both single then they could both screw the person(s) of their choosing and no one would have the right to say boo.
retro chic
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:48 am: [report]
You kidding? The women employees are the ones usually getting fired! Refreshing to see a boss get it once in awhile, even tho they unloaded him for their own expedient, liability reasons, and because he’s mediocre. Not fired for any moral reasons, that’s for sure.
retro chic
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:55 am: [report]
@Perceptible: I’ve always thought the same thing, too. Liability for a broken contract – same as any other civil contractual matter (I don’t think criminal would be appropriate), and not confined to divorce court.
bethlynn00
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 10:57 am: [report]
@ Perceptible: I mean if you have a pre-nup where infidelity is addressed, that can have serious legal implications when it comes to the division of property, custody, etc. I’m just not sure how successful making marriage vows a legal issue would be. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, but the law makes no mention of commitment or fidelity, those are just implied by vows, which are not legally binding. What about people who decide to have open marriages? What type of infidelity counts, just sex or emotional affairs? Really it is a moral issue and laws maybe be based on some common morals, but the variation in people’s moral beliefs vary so much, how would you prosecute people’s actions? I don;t think it would be a good idea to start throwing people in jail for having sex, our corrections system in this country is already overburdened, that’s why they got rid of debtor’s jail long ago. I think it’s jut too much to legal punish people for something like this, it gets too messy & too complicated.
equnsuocha
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 11:05 am: [report]
@Perceptible if the country could accept that marriage is in fact, a LEGAL contract, better than harsh penalties for infidelity, we could have marriage equality for all
lawyrgrl
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]
@Perceptible I would like to second the above aguments against making sex outside marriage an actionable offense and add one more - marriage is a contract of adhesion and as such can not be enforced. If you want to have legitimate children, automatic inheritance rights and property that can not be seized by creditors then you must get married. To then say that violation of the “faithfulness clause” inserted in the marriage service by religious organizations - NOT by the State who granted the perks I mentioned - can result in actual punishment forces people to make an impossible choice. (Legal protection for you and your children versus avoiding criminal charges if you are not a perfectly faithful spouse.) Hence, a contract of adhesion.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not cheerleading for infidelity but your suggestions are rather draconian. People make mistakes - especially with sex. Should they have to pay for them for the rest of their lives?
retro chic
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 02:19 pm: [report]
Have no fear, ladies (or men): vows will never be legally enforceable or punishable – unfortunately. Even prenup battles can be tied up in court for years. And who is going to pass these new laws? Those the lyin,’ cheatin’ politicians, lobbyists, legislators and judges?
It might be a bit awkward for Governator Arnold to sign that into law when he keeps his mistress in a Santa Monica apartment, only because it would never make it as a bill to begin with.
bumbler
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 02:33 pm: [report]
@Perceptible Somewhat off-topic but certain states have alienation of affection laws and the affair partner can be sued by the betrayed spouse. The strange thing is that the cheating spouse can’t be sued. I’m not sure what goes into proving alienation of affection but I thought it was interesting.
retro chic
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 03:02 pm: [report]
@bumbler: those are old dying laws that were once prevalent. The laws were designed to preserve marriage which benefited the men, the primary cheaters then. Any wife seeking counsel from doctors, lawyers, ministers who advised divorce could also be sued!
Riley
wrote on October 26 2009 @ 03:12 pm: [report]
This whole conversation about criminalizing what two consenting adults do is laughable. In a perfect world nobody would cheat or lie, but that doesn’t mean everything you don’t like should be a criminal offense.
Talk about control issues.
VX967
wrote on October 28 2009 @ 12:34 am: [report]
@bumbler The bad thing is most do not have the money to go to federal court. There are laws against slavery. One cannot own another person therefore those strictures are void. That is one reason most state have done away with such foolishness.
Everybody has the right to their own happiness!!!
bumbler
wrote on October 28 2009 @ 12:50 am: [report]
Long story and mostly unrelated but my parents were sued for alienation of affection. My father was in a car accident shortly after I was born when a woman cut in front of him. She cried and the police officer felt bad so he didn’t give her a ticket. My father never received a ticket because he was not at fault. This was roughly 1983-1984. For some reason (just greed I suspect) the woman and her husband decided since she was not ticketed they should sue my parents. Among the myriad of other complaints (medical issues, emotional distress, etc) was alienation of affection since her injury from the accident hurt their sex life I suppose. Things got ugly, they showed up at our house taking photos, my parents called the police. Anyway it all went to trial and since the woman was at fault for the accident all her claims were thrown out. So I know that as recently as the early 1980s it was still feasible to make a case for it.
Now I’m not saying I’m in favor of it, it’s a complicated issue. On one hand we don’t legislate morality. On the other hand this is a civil issue not criminal. If a betrayed spouse experiences PTSD (not far-fetched at all really) can they sue the spouse and affair partner for emotional distress? How do you prove a person did or did not have a predilection to develop the condition? Can you sue for marital assets spent on the affair and affair partner? It’s a complicated and interesting issue.
ritabread
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:43 am: [report]
do you think ESPN would have fired him if the story hadn’t made a huge cannonball splash in the media?
My answer to that question is If the woman he was having the affair with did not consistently attack the wife with calls and voicemails we would not have known this was even happening, I believe what happens in a persons personal life should stay there in there personal life, no ones employment should effect there personal life unless there is harassment being shown at work , now if steve or the woman were actual threatening each other at work and others were offended by it then yes action should take place at work , but just because he cheated on his wife then no he should still be employed, he will pay for the damages he caused his family in GOD’s time ,I feel really bad when I see public figures in the news for cheating on there spouses , why don’t they just divorce the spouse and let the spouse move on then they can go there seperate ways without the media using it to make things even more complicated,no one wants there dirty laundry in the public. I pray all works out for steve’s Wife. This is only my opinion.