Details on Ollie's firing

[Mokum]

Do you think UConn failed to pursue the "paying a mom $30k story " for that reason, or it just didn't pan out. Because I'm sure the NCAA will take a look.

I am curious as to what the souce of the money was ( if this is true)

 

[Excalibur]

I believe it depends on the language of the contract. Normally, to avoid severance you have to fire for just cause. If it exists but the jury doesn't believe that's why you fired him, I think the employee wins.

In the discrimination context you are correct. If the plaintiff can show that the stated reason, even if true, was a pretext for a discriminatory act, he/she should win. Ollie hasn't, to my knowledge, claimed discrimination, but that his civil rights were violated due to the failure to follow the process required by the collective bargaining agreement.

 

[8893]

In the discrimination context you are correct. If the plaintiff can show that the stated reason, even if true, was a pretext for a discriminatory act, he/she should win. Ollie hasn't, to my knowledge, claimed discrimination, but that his civil rights were violated due to the failure to follow the process required by the collective bargaining agreement.

Agreed.

As I've said before, if I were representing Ollie here, I would look at breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. I haven't looked at it in this context, but I suspect that it could get you to the same place, if you can demonstrate facts tending to show that NCAA violations were merely used as cover for a performance-based firing in an attempt to avoid paying the buyout.

 

[CL82]

In the discrimination context you are correct. If the plaintiff can show that the stated reason, even if true, was a pretext for a discriminatory act, he/she should win. Ollie hasn't, to my knowledge, claimed discrimination, but that his civil rights were violated due to the failure to follow the process required by the collective bargaining agreement.

The claim, if I remember correctly, was the failure to give Ollie notice of UConn's intent to fire. (Loudermill notice.) In the most recent release of information, there was a throw line that AD Dave, gave Ollie written notice two days before he met with him. It's not what I do for a living, but I think that meets the Loudermill requirements. This issue is one of the little sub-dramas that largely got overlooked by the board. If the administration botched that, as Ollie's lawyers claimed, it would have been a major screw up.

 

[August_West]

Agreed.

if you can demonstrate facts tending to show that NCAA violations were merely used as cover for a performance-based firing in an attempt to avoid paying the buyout.

And I think Ollies lawyers if they are worth their salt have a decent opportunity to make that case. It's not a slam dunk but there are some juicy items here related to timeline of application of cause that will raise some eyebrows.

 

[CL82]

For ease of reference this is language from KO's contract:

And...

(have to do this in two posts sorry.)

 

[CL82]

 

[CL82]

Agreed.

As I've said before, if I were representing Ollie here, I would look at breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. I haven't looked at it in this context, but I suspect that it could get you to the same place, if you can demonstrate facts tending to show that NCAA violations were merely used as cover for a performance-based firing in an attempt to avoid paying the buyout.

I think that is the argument. I don't see it as an easy one given that in order to succeed Ollie would have make the case that the agreement intended to allow NCAA violations. That's a tough row to hoe.

 

[Fishy]

I think that is the argument. I don't see it as an easy one given that in order to succeed Ollie would have make the case that the agreement intended to allow NCAA violations. That's a tough row to hoe.

Not sure how anyone can read that and think, "Yep, we should write a $10,000,000 check to this guy because (insert stupidity)."

 

[JMick]

Not sure how anyone can read that and think, "Yep, we should write a $10,000,000 check to this guy because (insert stupidity)."

"But he played basketball here a long time ago so it doesn't matter that he turned the program into a dumpster fire and broke the rules while doing it"

 

[8893]

I think that is the argument. I don't see it as an easy one given that in order to succeed Ollie would have make the case that the agreement intended to allow NCAA violations. That's a tough row to hoe.

Definitely not easy because it is extremely rare to find a smoking gun in any case, so there needs to be enough circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable juror could reach that conclusion in order to avoid summary judgment, which is the name of the game in a lawsuit. Not sure how that plays out in arbitration (which, btw, I am not certain is definitely the next step; I seem to recall some language suggesting that electing arbitration waives court action, which, to me, suggests that going straight to court is an option--one I would absolutely prefer if I was Ollie). I don't agree that he would have to show that the agreement intended to allow NCAA violations; only that the University has allowed similar or worse with others who have similar contracts, that it otherwise treated these violations less than seriously, and/or that it was plotting to remove him based on performance before any of this came to light, etc. The timeline would be very helpful in this respect.

Not sure how anyone can read that and think, "Yep, we should write a $10,000,000 check to this guy because (insert stupidity)."

You keep repeating that as if it is representative of something someone is thinking. Who, exactly, do you believe is saying or even thinking that? I'm certainly not.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Even if he loses arbitration, I think he would win in court. He has a contract. They would still have to work within the parameters of the Bargaining unit, which is why the union is involved. So they never sat down and came up with a plan or any progressive disciplinary process. Second they have over 100 violations by people in similar positions in which no action was taken, I am not a lawyer(but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express).

 

[krinklecut]

Even if he loses arbitration, I think he would win in court. He has a contract. They would still have to work within the parameters of the Bargaining unit, which is why the union is involved. So they never sat down and came up with a plan or any progressive disciplinary process. Second they have over 100 violations by people in similar positions in which no action was taken, I am not a lawyer(but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express).

That's not how it works. The contract doesn't say he'll be terminated if just cause is met, just that he can be. If there is just cause the University reserves the right to fire him for anything, or keep anyone on else on staff even if they have had violations.

 

[Madmannsucks]

That's not how it works. The contract doesn't say he'll be terminated if just cause is met, just that he can be. If there is just cause the University reserves the right to fire him for anything, or keep anyone on else on staff even if they have had violations.

Well, if I am suing, I would use a jury. That is how it works.
We are all sitting here guessing.