Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

[superjohn]

Let’s say UConn did not fire him - the 3 year NCAA just cause prevents him from doing his job for 3 years - so if they rule in his favor - they are ruling that UConn should pay him for 3 years in which by definition he could not perform his job - as a result of his actions.

Good point.

 

[superjohn]

I wonder if the requirement that the University meet the “just cause” standard in the CBA means that evidence of how the University has treated other similarly situated employees with respect to the “cause” they articulated, and of which they were aware at the time they decided to fire him, will be admissible.

I haven’t kept up on the play-by-play, but I don’t think they knew of his misstatements to the NCAA at the time that they fired him, did they?

Forget timeline of everything but pretty sure they knew about his misstatements to NCAA before firing.

 

[8893]

Let’s say UConn did not fire him - the 3 year NCAA just cause prevents him from doing his job for 3 years - so if they rule in his favor - they are ruling that UConn should pay him for 3 years in which by definition he could not perform his job - as a result of his actions.

That is a great damages argument using after-acquired evidence. At least that’s how I would play it. It probably leads to the same result at the end of the day, but you don’t have to prove just cause for the initial firing. Only that you would have fired him once you learned about this anyway.

 

[CTMike]

Like Ben Afleck repeating “RE TAIN ER” in good will hunting, just repeat “SHOW CAUSE” over and over. Can’t fail.

 

[whaler11]

I really don’t get why the NCAA’s opinion that you lied to them matters. It’s not like they are running a court of law. Their opinion on a he said he said argument between Ollie and Miller is really criteria that would be considered?

 

[8893]

I really don’t get why the NCAA’s opinion that you lied to them matters. It’s not like they are running a court of law. Their opinion on a he said he said argument between Ollie and Miller is really criteria that would be considered?

I don’t know what the misstatements were, but if they were proven to be misstatements of material facts, I don’t see how it’s any less serious than the underlying violations themselves, which the contract says can provide just cause—if there was “serious noncompliance.”

 

[whaler11]

I don’t know what the misstatements were, but if they were proven to be misstatements of material facts, I don’t see how it’s any less serious than the underlying violations themselves, which the contract says can provide just cause—if there was “serious noncompliance.”

Proven by who is my point. The NCAA? How do they ‘prove’ anything?

 

[8893]

Proven by who is my point. The NCAA? How do they ‘prove’ anything?

The same way they determine any other violations I suppose. They do investigations, review documents, interview people and make findings? I haven’t reviewed their procedures in almost 20 years and really don’t recall, but we know that they do find violations and that the contract says serious noncompliance with NCAA rules and regulations can be just cause. Ultimately it’s up to the arbitrator, which is why I like the damages argument better.

 

[uconnever]

I really think most of the BY should stop commenting on Ollie. The anger and emotion seems unhealthy. It’s to a point now where people act as if they hate Ray too, a uconn hero and one of the best things that has ever happened to uconn and Connecticut sports in general. If Ollie were to get a small settlement and this all goes away, members here will still be mad because they want to make sure he gets nothing. I would be good with it, I just want it all to go away and I’m sure Hurley does too.

I’m also tired of hearing “he was offered a settlement already. It’s too late now!” That was a long time ago and things change in lengthy legal battles.

I’ve been on the team that agrees UConn should have paid Ollie and been done with it a Loooong time ago. He deserves some of that money in my opinion. He provided a horrible service which I thought he would from the beginning. Drove me nuts as a player, I don’t care what anyone says, but he deserved some of the money. If he turned down the settlement and tried to play hardball, then you except the consequences.

 

[whaler11]

The same way they determine any other violations I suppose. They do investigations, review documents, interview people and make findings? I haven’t reviewed their procedures in almost 20 years and really don’t recall, but we know that they do find violations and that the contract says serious noncompliance with NCAA rules and regulations can be just cause. Ultimately it’s up to the arbitrator, which is why I like the damages argument better.

I’m sure they have their standards. I just don’t get why their conclusions would impact other legal procedings. If I’m an arbitrator - why would I take the NCAA’s word that he ‘lied’?

 

[Husky68]

Let me see the 302's. All of a sudden the NCAA's review and penalty assessment process is "a ok"?

 

[8893]

This case is the university’s shotgun mulch.

 

[Dean Wormer]

I really think most of the BY should stop commenting on Ollie. The anger and emotion seems unhealthy. It’s to a point now where people act as if they hate Ray too, a uconn hero and one of the best things that has ever happened to uconn and Connecticut sports in general. If Ollie were to get a small settlement and this all goes away, members here will still be mad because they want to make sure he gets nothing. I would be good with it, I just want it all to go away and I’m sure Hurley does too.

I’m also tired of hearing “he was offered a settlement already. It’s too late now!” That was a long time ago and things change in lengthy legal battles.

My sentiments exactly. I've said from the beginning, this whole thing just isn't worth it.
But I guess the "not a single penny " crowd, the same ones who told us this was a slam-dunk for the AD and "Ollie has no chance", want to FEEL self-righteous and "get him back" for some mythical betrayal of some kind and another.
Meanwhile, UConn basketball looks like amateur hour, and Hatfields-vs-McCoys to everyone but the BY.
Court cases are fluid and at any point things can change, so why go there?
We need to come together and make this go away. To quote Warden Samuel Norton from The Shawshank Redemption: "Not tomorrow, not after breakfast. But NOW, right NOW"!!

 

[zls44]

I’m sure they have their standards.

Speak for yourself.

 

[whaler11]

Speak for yourself.

I didn’t mean to imply I agree with them.

 

[nomar]

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.

There’s always a number.

 

[kemba]

My sentiments exactly. I've said from the beginning, this whole thing just isn't worth it.
But I guess the "not a single penny " crowd, the same ones who told us this was a slam-dunk for the AD and "Ollie has no chance", want to FEEL self-righteous and "get him back" for some mythical betrayal of some kind and another.

As annoying as that crowd is, it probably is worth it if they win.

 

[KingAG]

Idc anymore

 

[huskymedic]

That is a great damages argument using after-acquired evidence. At least that’s how I would play it. It probably leads to the same result at the end of the day, but you don’t have to prove just cause for the initial firing. Only that you would have fired him once you learned about this anyway.

I’m not sure you get to a damages argument in the NLRB arena. The question before the AAA Arbiter will likely be “Did the University of Connecticut have just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment @ the time of the termination.

This is the AAUP/UConn CBA language:

Today’s ruling is all part of the posturing dance. It comes down to what evidence/witnesses does UConn have to present regarding the NCAA and other violations and do they think it will lead to an all or nothing decision on their behalf.

 

[8893]

I’m not sure you get to a damages argument in the NLRB arena. The question before the AAA Arbiter will likely be “Did the University of Connecticut have just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment @ the time of the termination.

This is the AAUP/UConn CBA language:

View attachment 45599

Today’s ruling is all part of the posturing dance. It comes down to what evidence/witnesses does UConn have to present regarding the NCAA and other violations and do they think it will lead to an all or nothing decision on their behalf.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Chief00]

I’m not sure you get to a damages argument in the NLRB arena. The question before the AAA Arbiter will likely be “Did the University of Connecticut have just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment @ the time of the termination.

This is the AAUP/UConn CBA language:

View attachment 45599

Today’s ruling is all part of the posturing dance. It comes down to what evidence/witnesses does UConn have to present regarding the NCAA and other violations and do they think it will lead to an all or nothing decision on their behalf.

The evidence that would lead to the 3 year KO ban was there then - the investigation had been going on for many months. The University is required by the NCAA to police itself first. The University really had no choice but to terminate KO, especially given its recent history. That would be an argument.

 

[CL82]

I’ve been on the team that agrees UConn should have paid Ollie and been done with it a Loooong time ago. He deserves some of that money in my opinion. He provided a horrible service which I thought he would from the beginning. Drove me nuts as a player, I don’t care what anyone says, but he deserved some of the money. If he turned down the settlement and tried to play hardball, then you except the consequences.

Just curious, why does he deserve some of the money.

 

[SubbaBub]

Did UConn begin any actions toward his dismissal before it was made aware of his alleged NCAA violations? If not, what eveidence of those violations did it have and how serious were they with respect to potential NCAA sanctions? Did the evidence include KO lying to investigators?

IMO, the violations are not enough unless UConn was looking at another tourney ban. If they had him on lying before talking dismissal, then they are in the clear.

No court is going to side with an employee lying to investigators. If there was a "how do we fire him without paying" meeting, then they are screwed.

 

[SubbaBub]

Let’s say UConn did not fire him - the 3 year NCAA just cause prevents him from doing his job for 3 years - so if they rule in his favor - they are ruling that UConn should pay him for 3 years in which by definition he could not perform his job - as a result of his actions.

No. When he was fired, this hadn't happened. Had they waited, they would have have just cause to fire him.

This case is about motivation at the time of dismissal.

 

[pj]

No. When he was fired, this hadn't happened. Had they waited, they would have have just cause to fire him.

This case is about motivation at the time of dismissal.

Thanks for clarifying the KO team argument:

"Yeah, I'm guilty, but you only thought I was guilty when you convicted me, you didn't know for sure, therefore I should now be treated as if I was innocent."

 

[Towney007]

Jesus this is the most overthought thread ever.

He had an arbitration hearing approved which was 1,000% going to happen from day-1. Nothing's changed other than his dirtbag attorney now having an excuse to invoice him more.

 

[Chief00]

No. When he was fired, this hadn't happened. Had they waited, they would have have just cause to fire him.

This case is about motivation at the time of dismissal.

But they did have facts from several months of investigation by March 2018 firing date that led to that almost inevitable result.

 

[CL82]

Did UConn begin any actions toward his dismissal before it was made aware of his alleged NCAA violations? If not, what eveidence of those violations did it have and how serious were they with respect to potential NCAA sanctions? Did the evidence include KO lying to investigators?

IMO, the violations are not enough unless UConn was looking at another tourney ban. If they had him on lying before talking dismissal, then they are in the clear.

No court is going to side with an employee lying to investigators. If there was a "how do we fire him without paying" meeting, then they are screwed.

IIRC, they were aware of the investigation and were aware that KO had lied to administration. I don't know if they knew that he lied to investigators.

I think that a tourney ban is a pretty high standard for being considered "serious." But what "serious' means is now the issue that the case will won or lost on.

My guess is that UConn is still in good shape but the arbiter's decision at least keeps KO in the game.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That is a great damages argument using after-acquired evidence. At least that’s how I would play it. It probably leads to the same result at the end of the day, but you don’t have to prove just cause for the initial firing. Only that you would have fired him once you learned about this anyway.

Which would result in us paying him for one additional year more or less. That should be the maximum he could be entitled to as an award from the arbitrator.

 

[8893]

Which would result in us paying him for one additional year more or less. That should be the maximum he could be entitled to as an award from the arbitrator.

That's what I thought, but as @huskymedic pointed out, they are in NLRB world, where the issue submitted to the arbitrator may be only the just cause issue and not damages. I have no idea how that works, but if that's the case, the after-acquired evidence probably doesn't come in.