Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections



Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
218
Likes
463
Ollie wins ruling on union protection in fight over firing

"The arbitrator in the dispute between UConn and Kevin Ollie says the former basketball coach is protected by a union contract when it comes to the standard the school must meet in proving his ouster was justified."

Just to be clear, this isn't a ruling on whether or not UConn owes Ollie any specific amount of money, just a ruling that Ollie's protections from the AAUP mean a firing for just cause requires "a showing of serious misconduct" not the broader range of offenses that UConn initially claimed it could fire him for.

More hearings coming up.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
29,510
Likes
45,617
Ollie wins ruling on union protection in fight over firing

"The arbitrator in the dispute between UConn and Kevin Ollie says the former basketball coach is protected by a union contract when it comes to the standard the school must meet in proving his ouster was justified."

Just to be clear, this isn't a ruling on whether or not UConn owes Ollie any specific amount of money, just a ruling that Ollie's protections from the AAUP mean a firing for just cause requires "a showing of serious misconduct" not the broader range of offenses that UConn initially claimed it could fire him for.

More hearings coming up.
Ollie is banned from college sports for three years.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
118
Likes
215
I think UConn gave Ollie a number and Ollie said he wants 11 million dollars. When Ollie went full scorched earth I think Uconn decided on 0 dollars for Ollie.
I’m surprised the university doesn’t go on the offensive regarding Ollie. He did enough wrong to get a Three year suspension by the NCAA.
 

CL82

July 1, 2020 - Let the countdown begin!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,048
Likes
52,120
How on earth is this the union's fault? Unions exist to protect their members. If Benedict didn't want this to happen, he shouldn't have included union representation in Ollie's contract, which isn't common.
The coaches have been included in the union contract stemming back to the days when the coaches actually taught classes in addition to coaching. I think this ended right around the time Calhoun started, but the coaches remained as part of the bargaining group.

Ironically, this decision may actually promote a settlement. If the arbiter had found for UConn, it was game over for KO. The requirement of a serious offense for the firing creates a slight element of risk for the univeristy. Not much, since, as pointed out above, an independent body (the NCAA) found that Kevin's actions were so serious that he isn't allowed to coach for three years. Still that slight element of risk is an inducement to settlement. IF KO and his representation are smart they negotiate a modest settlement from UConn and walk away from what has been an absolute train wreck for his reputation. If their offer for the $10M that was left on KO's contract at the time of his termination for just cause is still "$11M," it is a fair bet that UConn let's the arbitration process run its course.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
218
Likes
463
The coaches have been included in the union contract stemming back to the days when the coaches actually taught classes in addition to coaching. I think this ended right around the time Calhoun started, but the coaches remained as part of the bargaining group.
Great point, thanks for the clarification. My understanding is that most universities don't include coaches in the bargaining group.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
5,151
Likes
5,813
Gives KO lawyers ground to quibble over the meaning of serious misconduct in relation to precedent. But, if he was suspended for 3 years by the NCAA, his conduct was such that he would be unable to perform his contract in any case. This would seem to meet a just cause standard by any measure. I can’t see him winning on the merits.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,769
Likes
8,102
Gives KO lawyers ground to quibble over the meaning of serious misconduct in relation to precedent. But, if he was suspended for 3 years by the NCAA, his conduct was such that he would be unable to perform his contract in any case. This would seem to meet a just cause standard by any measure. I can’t see him winning on the merits.
From my non-lawyer viewpoint, I agree with this. Gives Ollie's attorneys the avenue they wanted to argue over serious misconduct.

But UConn's attorneys then come back and say the school was put on probation based on Ollie's actions, and Ollie himself was given a 3 year suspension. That to me would seem to be the definition of serious misconduct.
 

8893

Curiouser
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,457
Likes
39,233
But, if he was suspended for 3 years by the NCAA, his conduct was such that he would be unable to perform his contract in any case. This would seem to meet a just cause standard by any measure. I can’t see him winning on the merits.
But UConn's attorneys then come back and say the school was put on probation based on Ollie's actions, and Ollie himself was given a 3 year suspension. That to me would seem to be the definition of serious misconduct.
Wasn't he fired before the probation and suspension though? If so, I don't think it can be used to justify the termination. It might be admissible to limit damages as after-acquired evidence though.
 

Top