SI: Breaking Down Kevin Ollie's Case Against UConn and the University's Likely Defenses

[8893]

From personal experience I think he’s gonna get smoked in arbitration...

Yeah, that’s my point. I’ll take a jury over an arbitrator or judge eight days a week. And as I read the contract he has the option to choose.

 

[Madmannsucks]

Yeah, that’s my point. I’ll take a jury over an arbitrator or judge eight days a week. And as I read the contract he has the option to choose.

What does arbitration cost? Think he can wait it out.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Haven’t had time to go through it all but I still don’t understand why no one, including his lawyers, appear to believe that going straight to court for de novo consideration, instead of arbitration, is an option given the contract language. Huge oversight imo.

... knew the Latin meaning of "de novo", but not so much the precise legal application:

De Novo

"When a court hears a case de novo, it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case. An appellate court hearing a case de novo may refer to the lower court’s record to determine the facts, but will but rule on the evidence and matters of law without deferring to that court’s findings. A trial court may also hear a case de novo following the appeal of an arbitration decision. Trial de novo occurs when a court decides all issues in a case, as if the case was being heard for the first time."

 

[Ewekon]

The lastest I heard is that the university made what they feel was a very fair settlement offer to KO in the last 2 weeks. He believes he can do better in court. The university is not willing to go above the number. So that is where we are at.

FWIW, the attorneys on the university side don't think they can lose in court. Not with the contract language and Ollie lieing to university officials about possible violations.

Where did you hear this? @chief has a standing gag order.

 

[Chief00]

The lastest I heard is that the university made what they feel was a very fair settlement offer to KO in the last 2 weeks. He believes he can do better in court. The university is not willing to go above the number. So that is where we are at.

FWIW, the attorneys on the university side don't think they can lose in court. Not with the contract language and Ollie lieing to university officials about possible violations.

KO’a Attorney has a huge ego and after bragging about how he was going to beat UConn at the Big East tournament he is trying to save face while having KO pay him to do it. So far, it’s not working real well and not in his client’s Interest in Chief’s opinion. Then again, his client may not have told him the truth.

 

[8893]

What does arbitration cost? Think he can wait it out.

It's not a matter of the cost. Generally an arbitrator's decision is final and can only be vacated by a court if the arbitrator abused his/her discretion (e.g., refused to hear evidence, was demonstrably corrupt/biased, exceeded his/her powers, etc.). That means, if he goes to arbitration and loses, the arbitrator's decision will be afforded the highest degree of deference the law recognizes and there are very long odds that it will be vacated. If he goes straight to court now without going to arbitration, however, he basically gets to try the case from scratch with no presumptions and no deference to the Benedict and Herbst decisions in their respective reviews.

 

[JMick]

KO’a Attorney has a huge ego and after bragging about how he was going to beat UConn at the Big East tournament he is trying to save face while having KO pay him to do it. So far, it’s not working real well and not in his client’s Interest in Chief’s opinion. Then again, his client may not have told him the truth.

Doesn't that firm have a history with UConn? Seems more like they're out for blood than a compromise

 

[TRest]

KO’a Attorney has a huge ego and after bragging about how he was going to beat UConn at the Big East tournament he is trying to save face while having KO pay him to do it. So far, it’s not working real well and not in his client’s Interest in Chief’s opinion. Then again, his client may not have told him the truth.

KO wasn't fired until March 10th, the same day as the BE tournament final. Very prescient on the part of the attorney who hadn't been hired yet.

 

[Paesano]

KO wasn't fired until March 10th, the same day as the BE tournament final. Very prescient on the part of the attorney who hadn't been hired yet.

KO knew he was getting fired well before that. You saw it in his body language. I am sure his lawyers had already been engaged before that date.

 

[JMick]

KO wasn't fired until March 10th, the same day as the BE tournament final. Very prescient on the part of the attorney who hadn't been hired yet.

I mean, he had to know it was coming. Oz made that tweet before the SMU game about how it was the last game or something

 

[HooperScooper]

KO knew he was getting fired well before that. You saw it in his body language. I am sure his lawyers had already been engaged before that date.

I’m sure he knew he was going to get fired but for just cause and not going to get paid?

 

[Chief00]

KO wasn't fired until March 10th, the same day as the BE tournament final. Very prescient on the part of the attorney”]


KO and Benedict had a discussion in Houston on March 3rd, the night before the Houston regular season game. The purpose of the meeting was to feel KO out as if there was flexibility to a Settlement. KO’s flexibility then is what it is today. He was not fired then but you don’t have that discussion unless the next shoe is soon to drop.

Additionally, KO was fired during the day, the game was at night. So it was public information by then. You realize KO was a existing member of a union who had existing representation.

 

[Madmannsucks]

It's not a matter of the cost. Generally an arbitrator's decision is final and can only be vacated by a court if the arbitrator abused his/her discretion (e.g., refused to hear evidence, was demonstrably corrupt/biased, exceeded his/her powers, etc.). That means, if he goes to arbitration and loses, the arbitrator's decision will be afforded the highest degree of deference the law recognizes and there are very long odds that it will be vacated. If he goes straight to court now without going to arbitration, however, he basically gets to try the case from scratch with no presumptions and no deference to the Benedict and Herbst decisions in their respective reviews.

OK...but based on the information KO's lawyers requested, I am thinking they are going to sue for discrimination rather than wrongful termination. When such and such happened with so and so what actions did you take? Do you have an opinion on that?

 

[TRest]

Not even a genuine good try. KO was fired during the day, the game was at night. You realize KO was a existing member of a union who had existing representation. And besides that’s what happened.

Sure thing buddy. His present grandstanding attorney is private, not his union representation. And he was at the BE tournament within earshot of you. "Chief knows things"

 

[Chief00]

Sure thing buddy. His present grandstanding attorney is private, not his union representation. And he was at the BE tournament within earshot of you. "Chief knows things"

Again, can you read? He knew a bare minimum of two to three weeks before the tournament he was going to be fired, however that formal discussion had not taken place. You may recall, Chief posted that he was gone. KO had also told another coach before the Houston game he expected to be gone.

KO and Benedict had a discussion in Houston on March 3rd, the night before the Houston regular season game. The purpose of the meeting was to feel KO out as if there was flexibility to a Settlement. KO’s flexibility then is what it is today. He was not fired then but you don’t have that discussion unless the next shoe is soon to drop.

Additionally, KO was fired during the day, the game was at night. So it was public information by then. His legal team was talking.

 

[8893]

OK...but based on the information KO's lawyers requested, I am thinking they are going to sue for discrimination rather than wrongful termination. When such and such happened with so and so what actions did you take? Do you have an opinion on that?

I don’t like the discrimination angle for a couple reasons (including that I don’t believe it) but it does have some legal advantages in terms of the burden shifting analysis.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the most promising angle is breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which I haven’t seen anyone else mention either.

 

[huskymedic]

I don’t like the discrimination angle for a couple reasons (including that I don’t believe it) but it does have some legal advantages in terms of the burden shifting analysis.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the most promising angle is breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which I haven’t seen anyone else mention either.

I think the good faith and fair dealing argument goes out the window as soon as they (UConn) provide the written annual certifications by Ollie that the program was in compliance with all NCAA regulations and polices (not even bringing in the violations University Code of Conduct/Athletic Department polices, etc.. pieces).

I agree on the discrimination piece - if the conversations regarding expectation of full and complete compliance (zero tolerance) with Manual and Herbst were clearly documented and agreed upon - it doesn’t matter what previous coaches personnel actions were.

 

[Chief00]

I don’t like the discrimination angle for a couple reasons (including that I don’t believe it) but it does have some legal advantages in terms of the burden shifting analysis.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think the most promising angle is breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which I haven’t seen anyone else mention either.

Universities don’t like to be call racist - so it’s a way to get a settlement with very little evidence.

 

[8893]

I think the good faith and fair dealing argument goes out the window as soon as they (UConn) provide the written annual certifications by Ollie that the program was in compliance with all NCAA regulations and polices (not even bringing in the violations University Code of Conduct/Athletic Department polices, etc.. pieces).

I agree on the discrimination piece - if the conversations regarding expectation of full and complete compliance (zero tolerance) with Manual and Herbst were clearly documented and agreed upon - it doesn’t matter what previous coaches personnel actions were.

I don't agree that the GF&FD goes out the window if KO can demonstrate facts suggesting that the fix was in to fire him for performance-related reasons before any of the alleged NCAA violations came to light, especially if they can show that other coaches also signed the certifications despite lack of compliance. Again, it's still a hard row to hoe, and I don't know what the evidence is, but the timeline would be very helpful in understanding it--including the timing of overtures made to Hurley, which some here who claim inside knowledge have stated occurred long before any of these discoveries.

Universities don’t like to be call racist - so it’s a way to get a settlement with very little evidence.

Yeah, I get that. I've also seen it cause the opposite reaction where the employer digs in once that is alleged with no evidence, because it becomes important for it to be vindicated in that regard.

 

[huskymedic]

I don't agree that the GF&FD goes out the window if KO can demonstrate facts suggesting that the fix was in to fire him for performance-related reasons before any of the alleged NCAA violations came to light, especially if they can show that other coaches also signed the certifications despite lack of compliance. Again, it's still a hard row to hoe, and I don't know what the evidence is, but the timeline would be very helpful in understanding it--including the timing of overtures made to Hurley, which some here who claim inside knowledge have stated occurred long before any of these discoveries .

Understood and agree regarding timelines when the straw broke the camels back. My point was more to the fact that a Good Faith and Fair Dealings covenant applies both ways/to both parties.

 

[8893]

Understood - My point was more to the fact that a Good Faith and Fair Dealings covenant applies both ways/to both parties.

Good point; I think it comes down to the spirit of the agreement rather than the letter, but that all depends on the perspective of whoever will be reviewing it. The unfortunate fact is that both sides signed an agreement that they each wish said something different than it does, which inevitably forces you to try and stick a square peg in a round hole.

 

[CL82]

It's a university, state run proceeding and not a lawsuit. If it were a lawsuit then the rules of discovery would apply. Going through the current process doesn't necessarily mean the University would have shared this information voluntarily with K.O's legal team. The FOIA was the only way to get the information given that UCONN is a public institution and required to comply with those kind of requests.

Mmm, I think it is because KO's outside counsel haven't filed a lawsuit and thus aren't entitled to discovery.

 

[husky8273]

Sure thing buddy. His present grandstanding attorney is private, not his union representation. And he was at the BE tournament within earshot of you. "Chief knows things"

and the seasoned litigators breached their new client's confidentiality by bragging at a location where they knew there would be many interested eavesdroppers. Unlikely.

 

[Chief00]

Doesn't that firm have a history with UConn? Seems more like they're out for blood than a compromise

Yep. My guess is he also wants this case to be part of his website - all the big $ wins for his clients. $10 million would impress but not $1-3M.

The attorney has nothing to lose now that he screwed up with the FOI request.
The only thing the outside World remembers is that $30,000 Miller story even though it’s hearsay. It hurts KO’s reputation and the university’s desire to thread the cause/sanction needle. So it serves no ones interest. And one would think the FBI will investigate given their interest in that area now. Miller is not the sharpest knife in the draw and now he’s pulled his wife, who perhaps is bitter he was fired, into the mess. Everything else is pretty boring away from CT.

 

[Chief00]

and the seasoned litigators breached their new client's confidentiality by bragging at a location where they knew there would be many interested eavesdroppers. Unlikely.

I reported it at that point in time, I don’t think he said anything he did not say in the newspapers. I think he felt he was standing up for his client - no case specifics. Or confidentiality. Your view is nonsense.

 

[auror]

I don't agree that the GF&FD goes out the window if KO can demonstrate facts suggesting that the fix was in to fire him for performance-related reasons before any of the alleged NCAA violations came to light, especially if they can show that other coaches also signed the certifications despite lack of compliance. Again, it's still a hard row to hoe, and I don't know what the evidence is, but the timeline would be very helpful in understanding it

I believe UConn has fired any coaches directly implicated in past sanctions, right?. Calhoun got failure to foster an atmosphere of compliance or whatever and wasn't fired, but that's not something you really can sign off on a compliance form about.

 

[ctchamps]

The lastest I heard is that the university made what they feel was a very fair settlement offer to KO in the last 2 weeks. He believes he can do better in court. The university is not willing to go above the number. So that is where we are at.

FWIW, the attorneys on the university side don't think they can lose in court. Not with the contract language and Ollie lieing to university officials about possible violations.

Was this their first offer?

 

[Chief00]

Was this their first offer?

As I mentioned in this thread - Benedict felt the settlement thing out on 3/3 without a specific offer. After that conversation in Houston - it was felt that for cause was the only route.

 

[husky8273]

Was this their first offer?

As I mentioned in this thread - Benedict felt the settlement thing out on 3/3 without a specific offer. After that conversation in Houston - it was felt that for cause was the only route.

so............Yes?

 

[TRest]

I reported it at that point in time, I don’t think he said anything he did not say in the newspapers. I think he felt he was standing up for his client - no case specifics. Or confidentiality. Your view is nonsense.

Link?