Might Jamie still sue over the firing?

---
Vicki Iovine, writing for (at?) The Huffington Post thinks it's possible:

I can't help wondering if Jamie sued Frank and the Dodgers, for firing her for an illegal reason - say maybe, sexual harassment. I can imagine a juicy little case in which she maintains that her employer fired her because she rejected his sexual advances (perhaps Jeff-the-Bodyguard would testify here) and thereby violated public policy.  She would most certainly be sticking it to the man, and really, isn't that what she really wants to do?

Maybe. But if she wins on the pre-nup, does she really want to go to the trouble of getting a couple million more for sexual harassment? Is it worth it at that point? I guess, from my point of view, she's got enough on her plate with the divorce. And remember that while she could (and did) petition the court for money from Frank to cover legal fees for the divorce litigation, she probably can't do the same for a sexual harassment suit.

Iovine's post has some other interesting thoughts on the issue of the firing and how it relates to the divorce. I'd encourage you to check it out, especially if snark is your thing.

Time for me to get some more work done and call it a week. Usual Friday drill...happy hour, hockey game, and the rest. It's a great day in my world...my alma mater fired its coach, and it's getting cold enough up here in the hinterlands that my snowmobile trip in a couple weeks might happen after all. Have a great weekend, everyone, and I'll be back if anything of note pops up over the next couple days.
---