Resolution Of Ollie Arbitration Delayed | The Boneyard

Resolution Of Ollie Arbitration Delayed

The new arbitrator will have to decide whether to simply read the transcripts, if transcripts were made, and proceed where Greenbaum left off, or repeat some of what has been done. Ollie’s representatives could argue that depositions need to be redone, so the new arbitrator has the chance to interpret body language, facial expressions, etc.

Methinks Ray Ray will be none to pleased about repeating the process.
 
CL82 said:
The new arbitrator will have to decide whether to simply read the transcripts, if transcripts were made, and proceed where Greenbaum left off, or repeat some of what has been done. Ollie’s representatives could argue that depositions need to be redone, so the new arbitrator has the chance to interpret body language, facial expressions, etc.

Methinks Ray Ray will be none to pleased about repeating the process.
Expand ...

How do they conduct arbitrations in Connecticut so that this makes sense? The arbitrator sits in the room during the deposition? At the very least there's a transcript and there's probably video. I've never heard of re-doing discovery when you get a new judge.
 
.-.
BigErnMcCracken said:
How do they conduct arbitrations in Connecticut so that this makes sense? The arbitrator sits in the room during the deposition? At the very least there's a transcript and there's probably video. I've never heard of re-doing discovery when you get a new judge.
Expand ...
I can't read the article because of the paywall, but this wouldn't be the first time that the Courant has conflated/confused depositions with live testimony during the arbitration. I'm guessing they mean the latter.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
How do they conduct arbitrations in Connecticut so that this makes sense? The arbitrator sits in the room during the deposition? At the very least there's a transcript and there's probably video. I've never heard of re-doing discovery when you get a new judge.
Expand ...

From the linked article:

The hearings and depositions in the case had been completed, and Greenbaum had made some rulings to which a new arbitrator, when named, will be bound, including her ruling in August 2019 that Ollie is entitled to union protection, and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between UConn and its AAUP chapter were not waived by his personal contract, and would be considered in the arbitration case.

The new arbitrator will have to decide whether to simply read the transcripts, if transcripts were made, and proceed where Greenbaum left off, or repeat some of what has been done. Ollie’s representatives could argue that depositions need to be redone, so the new arbitrator has the chance to interpret body language, facial expressions, etc.
Robert Rinker, executive director emeritus of the Connecticut State Employees Association, who followed the case closely, said if he were representing an employee under these circumstances, he would want to bring witnesses back for a new arbitrator.
“It’s going to be up to the parties as to how they want to do it,” Rinker said. “But in terms of the witnesses, I think they have to do them again, because one of the things an arbitrator wants to see is the demeanor of the witnesses when they’re testifying. Even if they ran a transcript, you really can’t get the flavor of the witnesses through a transcript.”
Robert J. Romano, a Connecticut-based lawyer who represents sports and entertainment figures in contract matters and is a professor of sports law at St. John’s, also believe much of the work will have to be redone.
“It depends on which rules their following,” Romano said, “if they’re following federal rules or other different arbitration rules that are out there. If they’re following federal rules, typically, you’re going to have to start anew. [Hearings] will have to be pretty much reheard by a new arbiter. It comes down to credibility. The judge wants to assess the credibility of the witness, assess the evidence, and it’s hard to assess credibility if you weren’t there.”
 
Chin Diesel said:
You know she is dead and can't read your comments, correct?
Expand ...
Yep, regardless, joking (indirectly) about her passing so soon after her death doesn't feel quite right to me. If it does to you, have at it.
 
CL82 said:
Yep, regardless, joking (indirectly) about her passing so soon after her death doesn't feel quite right to me. If it does to you, have at it.
Expand ...

Oh my, no. I would never make a comment like that. Comment on someone else making a comment like that? Absolutely.
 
.-.
How in the holy hell is this not decided yet? What the hell is going on with this whole process?
 
The Viking said:
How in the holy hell is this not decided yet? What the hell is going on with this whole process?
Expand ...
The arbitrator allowed expansive discovery and Ollie's counsel seem content to drag the thing out as long as they can in the hope of getting a nuisance settlement.
 
8893 said:
I can't read the article because of the paywall, but this wouldn't be the first time that the Courant has conflated/confused depositions with live testimony during the arbitration. I'm guessing they mean the latter.
Expand ...
Use this website to circumvent the paywall. Just copy the url of the article and paste it into the box on Outline.com.

Outline.com

outline.com outline.com
 
Last edited:
Sorry about her passing. No one wins here. Let's resolve this and move on with the rest of our lives.
 
this is a jackpot for the attorneys involved. essentially getting to bill twice as many hours for the same amount of work. theyve already put in the legwork preparing the witnesses etc. just have to hit rewind
 
Independent of what happens moving forward, it seems to me one option would be for a high-low binding arbitration where both parties agree to a figure for a floor and a ceiling. No jokes please.

This means that no matter the outcome, Ollie gets a maximum of X dollars if he wins, and gets a minimum of X dollars if he loses. The arbitrator has no knowledge of the figures or of the existence of the agreement. Only the parties know and they are bound by it.

This is used in personal injury cases and in other types of cases, where the parties agree. As I remember it, once a decision is rendered, then I think the arbitrator makes his or her official written ruling based on the parameters of the agreement he or she did not know of before the hearing.

The advantage to both parties is that the plaintiff gets something, and the defendant is not stuck with what they would consider an excessive settlement. It is not all or nothing.

Maybe this concept was rejected by either or both of the parties here. Lots of money involved so it depends on how strong the parties feel about their position.
 
.-.
great so this is getting dragged out even longer? Fun stuff, great last 7 days for us.
 
Ollies lawyer Parenteau thinks he is going to hit the jackpot. Despite UConn losing a scholarship and having a show cause issued against Ollie Parenteau expects to win. Ollie must have enough money in the bank that he can put up with the process. He is hoping to hit the jackpot as well but he screwed up and deserves nothing.
 
Chin Diesel said:
From the linked article:

The hearings and depositions in the case had been completed, and Greenbaum had made some rulings to which a new arbitrator, when named, will be bound, including her ruling in August 2019 that Ollie is entitled to union protection, and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between UConn and its AAUP chapter were not waived by his personal contract, and would be considered in the arbitration case.

The new arbitrator will have to decide whether to simply read the transcripts, if transcripts were made, and proceed where Greenbaum left off, or repeat some of what has been done. Ollie’s representatives could argue that depositions need to be redone, so the new arbitrator has the chance to interpret body language, facial expressions, etc.
Robert Rinker, executive director emeritus of the Connecticut State Employees Association, who followed the case closely, said if he were representing an employee under these circumstances, he would want to bring witnesses back for a new arbitrator.
“It’s going to be up to the parties as to how they want to do it,” Rinker said. “But in terms of the witnesses, I think they have to do them again, because one of the things an arbitrator wants to see is the demeanor of the witnesses when they’re testifying. Even if they ran a transcript, you really can’t get the flavor of the witnesses through a transcript.”
Robert J. Romano, a Connecticut-based lawyer who represents sports and entertainment figures in contract matters and is a professor of sports law at St. John’s, also believe much of the work will have to be redone.
“It depends on which rules their following,” Romano said, “if they’re following federal rules or other different arbitration rules that are out there. If they’re following federal rules, typically, you’re going to have to start anew. [Hearings] will have to be pretty much reheard by a new arbiter. It comes down to credibility. The judge wants to assess the credibility of the witness, assess the evidence, and it’s hard to assess credibility if you weren’t there.”
Expand ...

Bizarre. Generally speaking the arbitration hearing itself is a pretty good opportunity for the arbitrator to watch testimony and assess credibility. I've never heard of re-doing depositions.
 
storrsroars said:
Sadly, she went to the Spirit In the Sky.
Expand ...
I find myself wishing her name was Norma, and remembering how I got the biggest laugh when we were at the mortuary choosing the casket for my mother, and making arrangements for her funeral.

The rabbi was falling flat asking the usual questions in order to weave together a eulogy for my mother who he had never met. At a real, "Help me out here..." moment, and after a period of uncomfortable silence, I offered that she'd once gotten a hole-in-one. I knew the rabbi was a decent golfer.

My father and sisters instantly cracked up, because my mother had a legitimately earned 35 handicap, even though she probably played 4-5 times a week for years.

Before a packed chapel paying respects to a 63 year old woman, the rabbi touted her love of the sport and built to lauding this crowning achievement within a life otherwise focused on being a loving and loyal wife & mother, rather than racking up the kind of achievements that the rabbi had been trying to elicit from us. The majesty with which he spoke drew some knowing laughter, lightened the mood, and warmed hearts. I've never thereafter been uncomfortable about humor surrounding death and memorial services, but I've also never again taken the lead. The mood always needs to be read, and quite often humor is the last thing that should come up.

RIP, Marcia Greenbaum.
 
.-.
Why am I looking at this the wrong way? The NCAA banned KO for the 3 years when he would have earned the $10M+ in question, due to his actions. Therefore, he couldn’t perform his job anyways, even if he wasn’t previously fired. So why would he be entitled to damages from the firing? Essentially, he couldn’t have worked anyways. But, who knows some state union contract may allow for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,232
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom