KO - A tough spot to be in

[August_West]

Oh I agree he can get arbitration if he wants it; if I were representing him I would most likely advise him to opt for court instead.

The question for me--and I don't know the answer--is whether the commission of a "just cause" offense gives University the option to terminate him at any time of its choosing, even if it sits on it for months (or more) after its discovery of the offense(s) and awaits his season-end performance to exercise that option. To my mind, that creates an opening for the argument that the "just cause" offense was not the reason for the termination, and that poor performance, which is not grounds for termination (without pay) was the real reason. If there is a prior history of the University tolerating similar or worse offenses, that could also affect the analysis. I know the discrimination context is not directly applicable to strict contract analysis (and I don't want to go down the discrimination road), but I wonder if those circumstances couldn't form the basis for a claim by Ollie that the University breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by using the pretext of a technical "just cause" offense, on which it sat, to fire him for poor performance, which is not a fireable offense under his contract.

In other words, if the "just cause" offense(s) is/are the real reason they are firing him, why didn't they fire him when they first learned of the offense(s)?

If I was KO, I think I would rather have a judge and jury decide those issues than an arbitrator.

Could cut both ways.

Thank you.

Im no lawyer, I just beat them up on the Cesspool, but that is what Ive been trying to say here for days in a far less eleoquent, reasoned manner.

 

[8893]

Thank you.

Im no lawyer, I just beat them up on the Cesspool, but that is what Ive been trying to say here for days in a far less eleoquent, reasoned manner.

That's because you have a good gut.

 

[CL82]

Oh I agree he can get arbitration if he wants it; if I were representing him I would most likely advise him to opt for court instead.

The question for me--and I don't know the answer--is whether the commission of a "just cause" offense gives University the option to terminate him at any time of its choosing, even if it sits on it for months (or more) after its discovery of the offense(s) and awaits his season-end performance to exercise that option. To my mind, that creates an opening for the argument that the "just cause" offense was not the reason for the termination, and that poor performance, which is not grounds for termination (without pay) was the real reason. If there is a prior history of the University tolerating similar or worse offenses, that could also affect the analysis. I know the discrimination context is not directly applicable to strict contract analysis (and I don't want to go down the discrimination road), but I wonder if those circumstances couldn't form the basis for a claim by Ollie that the University breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by using the pretext of a technical "just cause" offense, on which it sat, to fire him for poor performance, which is not a fireable offense under his contract.

In other words, if the "just cause" offense(s) is/are the real reason they are firing him, why didn't they fire him when they first learned of the offense(s)?

If I was KO, I think I would rather have a judge and jury decide those issues than an arbitrator.

Interesting take. I guess it depends on the nature of the offense(s) whether Ollie would prefer a public or private(ish) resolution. What do you think of the University's inevitable counter argument that the terminating coaches at the end of the season is the industry standard which the contract could have, but did not, modify?

 

[8893]

Interesting take. I guess it depends on the nature of the offense(s) whether Ollie would prefer a public or private(ish) resolution. What do you think of the University's inevitable counter argument that the terminating coaches at the end of the season is the industry standard which the contract could have, but did not, modify?

I think that would also depend on the nature of the offense(s), and the extent to which the University has tolerated similar or worse from others without terminating them.

The more fact-intensive the better for KO imo, especially with a jury. If it is strictly a legal issue, I think it might be hard to get an AAA arbitrator to think outside the box.

 

[huskymedic]

As far as the timing, I still want to know what happened between when the NCAA was reported to be on campus on February 27th and the decision to begin the process to terminate for just cause 10 days later (other then the end of the season).

Thinking it was more than a coincidence when you fold in the previous reports of recruiting practices investigation and the revelation of Adams/Larrier summer practice issue. Did the NCAA path become clearer?

 

[Chief00]

For those who claim the AD told them he was keeping KO, is that the state of mind you need to prove that once you subsequently received notice of for cause recently you responded quickly and you did not have cause earlier? True, there was some for cause evidence earlier but not a strong enough case DB could say. .