From that item you can navigate the links to reach here and here. And particularly here, "Did Johnny Northside blog get Jerry Moore fired?" Pertinent, at the very end:
What does the U of M have to say? Daniel Wolter, the U of M’s news service director, responded via email that Moore was hired in mid-May “by UROC for what is called a “casual temporary” job. It’s typically used for very short-term work, usually specific to a particular task. His job was reviewing and analyzing newspaper content under the supervision of an academic researcher. His work has been completed and he was given notice on June 22. His leaving University employment was not related to performance issues. The University was unaware of the allegations against Mr. Moore at the time of the hiring and is currently not aware of the details of the allegations — nor are we in a position to comment on them.”
Read the links. See what you think. The more I find online to read, the more I wonder why the drama of it has been under too many radar detectors.
It's downright interesting.
_________UPDATE__________
Thurs. Mar.10 -- Something Terry Moore and his legal advisor, indeed both parties to the lawsuit need to face as a reality in future employment circumstances ---- I have posted the docket from the JACC litigation involving Moore and several others in a previous post. If I am running a business trouble free and as efficiently as I can make it to maximize earnings and profit; and I see something like that in a job applicant's background, if not concealed, I might think twice that I don't need the extra grief of having my boat rocked; and one showing public litigeousness can be judged on that alone as being a boat rocker. It's part of the risk-reward balancing in deciding when and if to take things to the courts. Just as taking it to the streets has consequences, taking it to the courts is part of the public record that plaintiffs in particular build for themselves. Defendants -- arguably you can cut some slack for parties compelled into court when the process server arrives.
Plaintiffs pick their own public persona that way, unlike defendants. They are the judicial aggressors, having suffered real or imagined wrongs. Or having deep enough pockets to buy the amusement of imposing judicial suffering upon another (anti-SLAPP legislation such as Minn. Stat. Ch. 554 being enacted because, as a matter of public policy, deep-pocketing another in particularly egregious but common situations is to be curbed and discouraged).
-------------
An interesting question, if a future potential employer of Moore were to say, "Jerry, it's not your race, your age, your gender, your zodiac sign, or your sexual orientation whatever that might be, but Jerry, it's what I perceive as litigiousness that discourages my hiring you," would Clark and Moore than sue - access to the courts being, after all, a protected right?
Doubtful it would ever surface that way. The resume would be accepted. The interview ended. The alternative applicant or one out of several hired. No cause need be given a rejected job applicant, and wisdom counsels against giving unrequired reasons that might only be the equivalent of needlessly poking a stick in a hornet's nest. Even should an applicant in a follow-up letter ask, "For the future, applying elsewhere, what might I do or say differently to enhance chances," the prudent reply is, "You were impressive. However, after review of all applicants it was decided the most promising person, guessing about that into the future, was offered the job and accepted."
End of story. Now go away. (That not being said, as unneeded, and possibly provocative.)