|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Oral Arguments to be heard in Keady v. Nike Case |
Current rating: 0 |
by Living Wage Project - Media Relations
Email: livingwages (nospam) aol.com (unverified!) |
14 Jun 2001
|
|
(New York, NY, June 14, 2001) Jim Keady, a former assistant soccer coach at St. John’s University in New York City, continues his David vs. Goliath battle against Nike, the largest athletic apparel company in the world, and St. John’s University, the largest Catholic university in the United States, this coming Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 10am in the Federal Appeals Court in Manhattan. |
Oral Arguments to be heard in Keady v. Nike Case: Precedent Setting Case Could Determine College Athletes\' Rights to Free Speech and Religious Freedom
(New York, NY, June 14, 2001) Jim Keady, a former assistant soccer coach at St. John\'s University in New York City, continues his David vs. Goliath battle against Nike, the largest athletic apparel company in the world, and St. John\'s University, the largest Catholic university in the United States, this coming Wednesday, June 20, 2001 at 10am in the Federal Appeals Court in Manhattan.
Keady alleges that he was forced to resign his graduate assistant coaching position at the national soccer powerhouse because of his public refusal to wear and promote Nike\'s products as part of the University\'s $3.5 million dollar endorsement deal with the sportswear giant. His initial complaint filed in November of 1999 states, \"On June 24, 1998, Mr. Keady, under intense pressure from university officials, was constructively fired.\" That complaint was dismissed on September 21, 2000. Keady has since appealed and was granted the upcoming opportunity for oral arguments.
Joel Joseph, who is representing Keady in the case, respectfully disagrees with the court\'s earlier decision to dismiss the case. He advocates that the case has merit and will be instrumental in establishing precedent in recognizing college athletes\' and coaches\' rights to free speech and religious freedom. \"To not acknowledge Mr. Keady\'s claim would be to say that universities can enter into corporate contracts that relinquish their responsibility to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of athletes and coaches.\"
In an earlier statement following the dismissal of the case Keady said, \"I am disappointed with Judge Schwartz\'s decision on a number of levels, but I am not discouraged. The truth of this matter will soon be brought to light and justice will be served. The desire that justice be served was the impetus for my refusal to participate in Nike\'s exploitative business practices, it was the genesis of this suit against Nike and St. John\'s University, and it continues to be my passion and my primary goal.\"
He continued, \"My goal in asserting my legal rights is twofold. First, I am speaking up on behalf of all university coaches and athletes who do not support Nike\'s exploitative labor practices yet are forced, under the terms of Nike\'s contracts, to endorse Nike products that are manufactured by what Nike workers themselves have described as slave labor. Second, I am committed to raising the awareness of Nike\'s continued inhumane treatment of workers making Nike products. Nike has made claims that they are committed to bringing the truth about their labor practices to light. Yet, Nike has done little substantively to change the working and living conditions for Nike factory workers.\"
Keady concluded, \"To be clear, the main reason for the actions that I have taken on this issue in the past three years is not monetary or personal gain...it is the men and women who struggle to survive day in and day out working in Nike\'s factories. In doing so, I was forced to give up my job as a soccer coach, I have incurred substantial debt, and I have become a target of Nike\'s public relations campaign. However, these minor hardships pale in comparison to the daily sacrifice of human dignity incurred by Nike factory workers, and it is for them that I will continue to fight and struggle so that justice and truth will prevail.\"
Keady has first-hand experience of Nike\'s treatment of its overseas workforce. He and fellow human rights\' activist, Leslie Kretzu spent August, 2000 in a worker\'s slum outside of the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, trying to live on the wage of a Nike worker - about $1.25 a day.
As a result, Keady lost 25 pounds and Kretzu 15 and both spent the month, as Keady described, \"painfully hungry, tired and near the point of exhaustion most days. You can survive, but you cannot live on that wage, it\'s a starvation wage. We know. We starved on it.\" |
See also:
http://www.nikewages.org
|
