Now that Randy Hanson has followed through with filing a civil suit against the Raiders and coach Tom Cable, at some point in the future Cable may have to go on the record.
And there are few things Al Davis likes less from his coaches than going on the record. He’d prefer they be seen and not heard, and he’s not even that keen on them being seen.
During the criminal investigation conducted by the Napa authorities into the Aug. 26 incident, which Hanson claims left him with a broken jaw, Cable maintained his silence with both the public and law enforcement other than saying the system would bring a just end result.
Cable wasn’t obligated to talk with police. A civil suit demanding a jury trial which alleges the infliction of assault, battery and intentional influction of emotional distress would require Cable to speak in his own defense.
No telling, of course, how long Cable and the Raiders could drag this out before that actually happens.
Hanson returned to work for the Raiders in the personnel department on Dec. 9 but has kept his distance from Cable under terms specified by the Raiders, according to court documents filed by Hanson’s attorneys, McGuinn, HIllsman and Palefsky. I’ll detail some of those requests below.
The suit comes as no surprise, and was hinted at by Hanson’s attorneys when Napa authorities declined to press charges.
Hanson declined comment to beat writer Steve Corkran, and the Raiders (surprise!) had no comment.
The suit says Cable “without warning or provocation willfully, maliciously and intentionally attacked” Hanson and claims Cable “battered and seized (Hanson’s) left jaw and neck” before being restrained by other coaches. It asks for damages in “excess of $25,000.”
(The amount is essentially a starting point. Court documents state Hanson is entitled to “an award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.”
As was previously alleged by Hanson in an interivew with YahooSports.com, it says Cable threatened to kill Hanson.
Also included in the “Facts Common to All Causes of Action” in the court document filed in Superior Court of California, County of Alameda:
— The Raiders have ratified and adopted as its own the willful, intentional and malicious acts of Cable against Hanson.
— Cable’s attack was not out of character. Cable has several times been accused of violence against women and has a documented public record of such conduct.
— As time went on, the Raiders made no effort to contact Hanson, and indeed ignored his efforts to clarify his employment status. Although the Raiders had ample opportunity to investigate Cable’s attack, they made only a cursory attempt to do so. Cable was not and has not been disciplined in any way for the egregious workplace violence which he committed.
— Then, on December 8, 2009, a Raiders representative contacted Hanson’s attorney and informed him that although Hanson would not immediately be permitted to coach, he would be allowed to “work” at the Raiders facility in the personnel department under certain conditions. These conditions included the following: Hanson was to park in front of the facility, rather than in the rear where players and other coaches parked. He was to enter only through the front entrance, rather than the rear entrance which was used by players and coaches. He was only permitted to be in the “administrative” area of the facility and could not enter the “football” side of the facility. He was not to attend any Raiders home games. If he wished to eat the lunch provided daily to the Raiders staff, he must ask someone to bring it to him. If he wished to access video tape in order to evaluate players, as his new “job” required, he was to ask someone to bring it to him.
— Hanson was initially told that these conditions would be effective for only four weeks. However, on January 28, 2010, the owner of the Raiders, Al Davis, informed Hanson that he would no longer be allowed to coach. In essence, Hanson’s segregation would remain in place so long as Hanson remained employed by the Raiders.
— The conditions imposed on Hanson’s employment effectively segregated Hanson from those who were once his colleagues. At the very least, these work conditions conveyed the impression that Hanson was being punished for some kind of malfeasance.
— In fact, the only conduct for which Hanson could be held responsible was being the latest person to fall victim to Cable’s violent rage and uncontrolled temper.