Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

[BlueDogs]

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.

It’s the underlying act(s) that led to the firing and also the ultimate suspension. So, in reality, the sanction validates the basis for UConn’s action.

 

[navery12]

This basically just means UConn will have to show cause in their firing of him. Luckily with a 3 year ban that's pretty easy

 

[navery12]

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.

It's not the suspension that's the justification, it's the reason he was suspended

 

[DefCONNOne]

Are people really that surprised he got an arbitration hearing?

I'm surprised you think Ollie deserves anything other than zero dollars.

 

[8893]

It’s the underlying act(s) that led to the firing and also the ultimate suspension. So, in reality, the sanction validates the basis for UConn’s action.

The underlying conduct, yes, if that’s what they knew and cited at the time they fired him. I thought you were saying that his suspension itself prevented him from being able to fulfill the contract and therefore provided just cause for the firing.

 

[huskymedic]

Applicable AAUP Language (pg 50 of CBA) - Note that the “level of proof shall be the preponderance of the evidence” and the language in 37-12 A ii regarding serious noncompliance w/ “NCAA rules and regulations”:

 

[businesslawyer]

@businesslawyer or any other lawyers on the board...does this significantly change this case?

It is not good, but it is not dispositive either. It means that UConn will have to show that it's firing was based on KO's misdeeds, and not that the program was losing and unable to keep players. They will have to show that, at the time they fired him, they knew that he had material violations of NCAA rules and they will be o.k. However, what they found out after the firing is unlikely to help UConn, and they will have the burden of showing that the NCAA violations that they knew of at the time were not pretextual. Said another way, that they weren't firing him because the program was falling apart and this was just an excuse. KO's team will be saying that of course UConn had already decided they wanted KO out, because the way UConn threw, rather than aggressively defended, the NCAA investigation was so the NCAA would give UConn cover to fire him.

Many here are following this more closely than I, but from what I see and know I would think that, after this ruling, the decision could certainly go either way.

What is ironic, however, is that those on the board who desperately wanted him out for losing are the ones now saying the NCAA violations make it o.k., even though their minds were made up ahead of the investigation. The factual question I don't know is will the evidence show that UConn's mind was made up at that time as well.

 

[UConnDad]

So now it's crystal clear. You guys are right.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Shine33]

I continue to lose respect for Ollie. He has continuously shown he cares more about himself than the program and the mentors who helped to raise him into prominence. The signs were there long before the firing. He couldn’t handle the responsibility and he wants to blame everyone except for himself. I don’t care what level you make it to in life. I always side with personal accountability. I really would like to believe I would have taken the original deal had I been in his shoes knowing that I failed to be a leader. Would have accepted it like a man and moved on.

 

[andy34]

No, another poster pointed out that UConn has historically included union representation in our coaches' contracts - my understanding (I could be wrong!) is that other universities generally do not do this (for the exact reason we're in this specific situation).

 

[businesslawyer]

I continue to lose respect for Ollie. He has continuously shown he cares more about himself than the program and the mentors who helped to raise him into prominence. The signs were there long before the firing. He couldn’t handle the responsibility and he wants to blame everyone except for himself. I don’t care what level you make it to in life. I always side with personal accountability. I really would like to believe I would have taken the original deal had I been in his shoes knowing that I failed to be a leader. Would have accepted it like a man and moved on.

If having a court uphold an argument is something that causes you to "lose respect" for the winning party, you need to reexamine your priorities. None of us have the obligation in a lawsuit to let the other side have something -- whether procedurally or a result -- that they are not entitled to under the law.

Whatever you thought of him for filing the suit is fine. But you don't get to rationally lose respect for him winning an argument.

 

[superjohn]

What is ironic, however, is that those on the board who desperately wanted him out for losing are the ones now saying the NCAA violations make it o.k., even though their minds were made up ahead of the investigation. The factual question I don't know is will the evidence show that UConn's mind was made up at that time as well.

People wanted him out because he stopped doing his job, he destroyed the program, and was recruiting kids based off of their youtube videos. Ollie chose to flagrantly break rules, lie to his employer, and the NCAA. People wanted him out of here so he could no longer destroy our program any more than he alteady has, it turns out he was choosing to break the obligations of his contract which is why he isn't owed money. i don't see what's ironic about it.

It's strange there are still some people who think the guy who lied to the University, lied to the NCAA, called out the man who gave him everything, called people racists, and is banned from the sport for 3 years is owed close to 11 million dollars.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

They’ll appeal that most likely. Not just for KO but because it has to be entirely unacceptable to UConn that it’s coaches get faculty union protection. It’s absurd on its face. It means they can’t really negotiate terms with them at face value.

 

[HuskyHawk]

No, another poster pointed out that UConn has historically included union representation in our coaches' contracts - my understanding (I could be wrong!) is that other universities generally do not do this (for the exact reason we're in this specific situation).

My understanding is that state doesn’t give UConn a choice in the matter. It’s an archaic artifact that should have gone away long ago.

As for the arbitration, his lawyer says it would be wrong to assume that the NCAA ruling will have relevance to the arbitrator’s decision. It would also be wrong to assume it won’t. As @BlueDogs pointed out, it provides at least retroactive validation that the charges were serious. I don’t see any way it isn’t “relevant” even if not dispositive. Preponderance of the evidence is a pretty favorable standard for UConn.

Edit to fix autocorrect of serious.

 

[businesslawyer]

My understanding is that state doesn’t give UConn a choice in the matter. It’s an archaic artifact that should have gone away long ago.

As for the arbitration, his lawyer says it would be wrong to assume that the NCAA ruling will have relevance to the arbitrator’s decision. It would also be wrong to assume it won’t. As @BlueDogs pointed out, it provides at least retroactive validation that the charges were series. I don’t see any way it isn’t “relevant” even if not dispositive. Preponderance of the evidence is a pretty favorable standard for UConn.

Second paragraph is accurate.

 

[Chuck]

I would think it's a victory for Ollie, but either way, "just cause" had to be defined somehow and the definition in the contract above doesn't seem unreasonable. That could be why the arbitrator ruled that way (so as not not to be overruled). It's not like it limited "just cause" to killing someone. It specifically referenced "serious noncompliance with NCAA rules or regulations."

UConn definitely seems to have some good evidence that Ollie committed "serious noncompliance" considering the NCAA's findings. And the noncompliance was committed at the time of the violation, not at the time of the NCAA findings. Also, being an undefined term, it's arguable that the NCAA's findings, alone, show the noncompliance was serious. It doesn't matter if the NCAA was right or wrong, or if UConn fought the NCAA hard enough. KO gave UConn just cause by taking the actions (or omissions) in question. We lost a scholarship and are on probation due to KO's actions or omissions, which means they were serious.

KO was clearly in a better position prior to the NCAA findings. He had the argument that they violations weren't true OR they weren't serious. I guess he can still say they weren't true, but that's tough. I'd think that KO's only defenses are: i) UConn fired him before the violations were known to be true/serious and he should have been suspended (with pay) until that time. ii) UConn deliberately rolled over and let the NCAA do what they wanted just to benefit UConn. That still doesn't mean that KO's actions don't represent serious noncompliance, just that UConn would have to prove it again. iii) JC committed the same/similar level of noncompliance and wasn't fired so the violations must not be serious. iv) even if the violations were serious, JC not being fired shows that the reason KO was fired was performance NOT for cause. That shouldn't matter, but it may being a union contract, plus they are just going for the "looks bad" factor.

 

[CL82]

What is ironic, however, is that those on the board who desperately wanted him out for losing are the ones now saying the NCAA violations make it o.k., even though their minds were made up ahead of the investigation. The factual question I don't know is will the evidence show that UConn's mind was made up at that time as well.

How is that ironic? Aren't those two separate points? 1) KO was doing a bad job as coach. 2) UConn had the right to fire him for cause under the contract. The existence of one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

IIRC, KO's contract and/or the CBO provide a procedure for the discharge process. Early on in the process (likely step 1 or 2) UConn had to provide KO with a list of the events that were the basis for just cause. So the basis for the firing is 'etched in stone.' UConn can't finesse the facts in light of the arbiter's ruling.

Again, IIRC, they included, several violations of NCAA rules, including illegally (in violation of NCAA rules) paying for illegal travel, illegal meals and illegal lodging to attend illegal coaching sessions with an illegal coach. There's more penny ante items as well (included no doubt to show a pattern of ignorance or ignoring of NCAA rules) but that it is the big ticket item. In addition, UConn cites that KO failed to disclose that the violations had occurred when question by his employer. Herbst ruling cited these same facts. They are the same facts that the NCAA listed in ruling on KO.

I don't think it is as close a call as you do.

 

[Madmannsucks]

I like litigating his case on the yard over and over...each time with numerous changed minds and a completely different result.

 

[businesslawyer]

How is that ironic? Aren't those two separate points? 1) KO was doing a bad job as coach. 2) UConn had the right to fire him for cause under the contract. The existence of one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

IIRC, KO's contract and/or the CBO provide a procedure for the discharge process. Early on in the process (likely step 1 or 2) UConn had to provide KO with a list of the events that were the basis for just cause. So the basis for the firing is 'etched in stone.' UConn can't finesse the facts in light of the arbiter's ruling.

Again, IIRC, they included, several violations of NCAA rules, including illegally (in violation of NCAA rules) paying for illegal travel, illegal meals and illegal lodging to attend illegal coaching sessions with an illegal coach. There's more penny ante items as well (included no doubt to show a pattern of ignorance or ignoring of NCAA rules) but that it is the big ticket item. In addition, UConn cites that KO failed to disclose that the violations had occurred when question by his employer. Herbst ruling cited these same facts. They are the same facts that the NCAA listed in ruling on KO.

I don't think it is as close a call as you do.

The answer to your question in the first paragraph is "yes." As to your second paragraph, I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me if what you said is entirely correct. As for the third paragraph, we'll see.

 

[HuskyHawk]

How is that ironic? Aren't those two separate points? 1) KO was doing a bad job as coach. 2) UConn had the right to fire him for cause under the contract. The existence of one is not mutually exclusive of the other.

IIRC, KO's contract and/or the CBO provide a procedure for the discharge process. Early on in the process (likely step 1 or 2) UConn had to provide KO with a list of the events that were the basis for just cause. So the basis for the firing is 'etched in stone.' UConn can't finesse the facts in light of the arbiter's ruling.

Again, IIRC, they included, several violations of NCAA rules, including illegally (in violation of NCAA rules) paying for illegal travel, illegal meals and illegal lodging to attend illegal coaching sessions with an illegal coach. There's more penny ante items as well (included no doubt to show a pattern of ignorance or ignoring of NCAA rules) but that it is the big ticket item. In addition, UConn cites that KO failed to disclose that the violations had occurred when question by his employer. Herbst ruling cited these same facts. They are the same facts that the NCAA listed in ruling on KO.

I don't think it is as close a call as you do.

I doubt KO wins this. The question now becomes, if UConn had been taking a “no settlement” position lately because the NCAA ruling made their case even stronger, do they now throw him $1m to go away. I’d advise yes. The second part of the question, are KO’s lawyers, who have overestimated their case at every turn, emboldened by this enough to reject such an offer?

Everyone talks about settlement but both sides need to engage to get there.

 

[CL82]

I like litigating his case on the yard over and over...each time with numerous changed minds and a completely different result.

Sarcasm duly noted, but in fact a lot of minds have been changed as this has dragged on. I think a lot more people were originally open to KO's argument. In particular, the NCAA's findings have changed the public's view on this.

 

[CL82]

I doubt KO wins this. The question now becomes, if UConn had been taking a “no settlement” position lately because the NCAA ruling made their case even stronger, do they now throw him $1m to go away. I’d advise yes. The second part of the question, are KO’s lawyers, who have overestimated their case at every turn, emboldened by this enough to reject such an offer?

Everyone talks about settlement but both sides need to engage to get there.

Agreed, particularly if it was paid over multiple years and accompanied by a general release.