What's Next For Kevin Ollie And UConn? We Asked Lawyers To Weigh In (Courant)

[huskymedic]

What's Next For Kevin Ollie And UConn? We Asked Lawyers To Weigh In

>>UConn’s lawyers will need to prove whether it had just cause in firing Ollie in order to hang onto the remaining salary. Being a complicated legal matter, three experts in the field familiar with the situation weighed in for The Courant recently in an effort to shed light on the process and to analyze the case: Robert J. Romano, New Haven-based sports lawyer with 20 years’ experience representing sports and entertainment figures in contractual matters; Robert Rinker, retired, former executive director of the Connecticut State Employees Association; and Michael Rueda, a former UConn soccer player, now head of the U.S. sports practice at the New York-based law firm Withersworldwide. Rueda regularly advises athletes, coaches, and management on contractual issues.<<

>>Rinker said, “where we can all hide behind the arbitrator, and whatever decision the arbitrator has, but it really speaks to, why are we not mediating a resolution to this?’ My advice to either side would be, get someone who is skilled at mediation and mediate a settlement of this, because each one of them is at risk in arbitration, and you want to be able to minimize your risk.”<<

Based on personal experience on both side of the AAA arbitration table - Rinker and Rueda comments are on point...

 

[CL82]

Good article. I don't agree with all of it but it is well worth the time to through it. Give the attorney comments more weight than the reporter. He gets some things wrong.

Rueda: The way the contract is drafted itself, the university has a very good position to say, ‘we drafted this in a very expansive, broad fashion to loop in any violation. … You can’t look at [Ollie’s contract and the CBA] separately; you have to look at it as one body of work.”

Romano: “Of course they fall within violations, but do they rise to the level of terminating a multi-million dollar contract? No.

I don’t think Kevin Ollie, without the agreement of the union, can waive rights that he has under the collective bargaining agreement,” Rinker said. “Only the union can agree to do that.”

 

[donyell34]

Can it just end already.

 

[Paesano]

Jesus, Tom, I know KO was good to you and you are loyal to the guy but don't you think you have become a bit hypersensitive? I get that some people have been particularly critical of KO and maybe that made you sensitive toward those people regarding anything KO but it really seems that you may have become a bit unhinged on these matters.

 

[8893]

Jesus, Tom, I know KO was good to you and you are loyal to the guy but don't you think you have become a bit hypersensitive? I get that some people have been particularly critical of KO and maybe that made you sensitive toward those people regarding anything KO but it really seems that you may have become a bit unhinged on these matters.

?

 

[MadDogRevival]

IMO, very poorly written, near-useless article. The three attorneys appear to be pro-employee attorneys. The article doesn't specify why and to what extent the CBA should impact the interpretation of Ollie's contract. One clown of an attorney, who is clearly biased pro-employee, makes the comparison of a coca-cola delivery being 10 minutes late voiding a 10 million dollar contract to Ollie's situation. Cringe-worthy.

Advice - don't read. Nothing there.

 

[Paesano]

?

Had to do with CL82's post and pretty much anything he and a few others ever post on KO these days.

 

[8893]

I was not aware of this, the bolded part of which could be particularly interesting here:

In 1964, an arbitrator, Carroll Daugherty established a seven-point test for “just cause” and, Rinker said, arbiters still generally rely on it. Summarized, the seven points are:

• Was the employer’s rule or managerial order reasonably related to the orderly, efficient and safe operation of the business?
• Did the employer give any warning as to any possible discipline or consequence that could result from that employee’s action or behavior?
• Prior to administering discipline, did the employer conduct an investigation to determine whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule or order?
• Was this investigation fair and objective?
• Did this investigation uncover any substantial proof or evidence that the employee was guilty of violating or disobeying a direct rule or order?
• Did the employer apply all rules, orders and penalties evenhandedly and without discrimination to ALL employees?
• Was the degree of discipline administered reasonably related to either the seriousness of the employee’s offense or to the record of past service?

“In arbitration, burden of proof in a dismissal case will be on the University of Connecticut.” Rinker said.

 

[CL82]

I was not aware of this, the bolded part of which could be particularly interesting here:

To this point, ’s representatives have asserted many violations by other UConn coaches, including Jim Calhoun, that did not result in a dismissal.

“Optically, there does appear to be a double standard,” Rueda said, “but it was made very clear that if there are violations and they can support them, then the fact that [UConn] tolerated some of this previously under some other coach doesn’t really prohibit you from not tolerating it now. It has no real legal implications for this case, but it does create a bit of an optics issue.”

 

[Rico444]

Oh good, another one of these threads.

 

[8893]

To this point, ’s representatives have asserted many violations by other UConn coaches, including Jim Calhoun, that did not result in a dismissal.

“Optically, there does appear to be a double standard,” Rueda said, “but it was made very clear that if there are violations and they can support them, then the fact that [UConn] tolerated some of this previously under some other coach doesn’t really prohibit you from not tolerating it now. It has no real legal implications for this case, but it does create a bit of an optics issue.”

Yeah, I have no idea how it will play out, but there is a reason why arbitration is sometimes referred to as the "Wild West," i.e., oftentimes anything goes, and it all depends on the arbitrator. I had never seen that seven-point test before, much less was I aware that many arbitrators still rely on it.

To me, it all still points to the sense in finding a way to resolve it before going there.

 

[CL82]

Oh good, another one of these threads.

I know you must have been shocked when you clicked on a thread entitled "What's Next For Kevin And UConn? We Asked Lawyers To Weigh In (Courant)" only to find it that was actually about what's next for Kevin and UConn.

 

[Rico444]

I know you must have been shocked when you clicked on a thread entitled "What's Next For Kevin And UConn? We Asked Lawyers To Weigh In (Courant)" only to find it that was actually about what's next for Kevin and UConn.

I opened it hoping to get some actual information on what's happening next with Kevin Ollie, other than speculation from a bunch of people that aren't involved. Unfortunately, there's none of that, and the same posters that either blindly hate or blindly love Kevin Ollie are going to peddle their thoughts that we've already heard regurgitated over and over again.

You're right, though, that I knew what I signed up for when I opened the thread. Doesn't mean I have to like it or even accept it.

 

[Chief00]

Yeah, I have no idea how it will play out, but there is a reason why arbitration is sometimes referred to as the "Wild West," i.e., oftentimes anything goes, and it all depends on the arbitrator. I had never seen that seven-point test before, much less was I aware that many arbitrators still rely on it.

To me, it all still points to the sense in finding a way to resolve it before going there.

It won’t go to an arbitration hearing. If it does, KO can sue his attorney for malpractice - LOL

 

[pj]

I don’t think Kevin Ollie, without the agreement of the union, can waive rights that he has under the collective bargaining agreement,” Rinker said. “Only the union can agree to do that.”

What? He thinks KO can't agree to a settlement with the university unless the union agrees? For any settlement will surely waive any outstanding rights.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

?

"Evidence of things unseen."

 

[auror]

What? He thinks KO can't agree to a settlement with the university unless the union agrees? For any settlement will surely waive any outstanding rights.

In context, I think he's referring to specifically when KO signed his contract, it is his opinion that KO's contract can't supersede or waive rights that the Union has collectively bargained for in a legal document.

Choosing not to exercise said rights is... also his right. But it usually is encouraged.

 

[CL82]

What? He thinks KO can't agree to a settlement with the university unless the union agrees? For any settlement will surely waive any outstanding rights.

I think he's saying that KO's contract doesn't trump the CBA. So the NCAA language shouldn't be grounds for a "just cause" dismissal.

I don't think he's right but I think that what was he was trying to say.

 

[HuskyHawk]

In context, I think he's referring to specifically when KO signed his contract, it is his opinion that KO's contract can't supersede or waive rights that the Union has collectively bargained for in a legal document.

Choosing not to exercise said rights is... also his right. But it usually is encouraged.

As an example of this that many may remember, the MLB Players Association did not allow Alex Rodriguez to reduce his own contracted salary in order to be traded to the Red Sox. He ended up with the Yankees.

I think A-Rod could absolutely have done it if he wanted, but he would have risked the anger of the union.

In this case, I don't understand the argument. Kevin hasn't waived any rights he had under the CBA in his contract. There is no way that UConn can or ever would hire any coach under just the CBA that applies to faculty. If the union takes that position, changes will be made, and none of these coaches will be in that union in the future (which is the correct outcome anyway).

 

[Tenspro2002]

To this point, ’s representatives have asserted many violations by other UConn coaches, including Jim Calhoun, that did not result in a dismissal.

“Optically, there does appear to be a double standard,” Rueda said, “but it was made very clear that if there are violations and they can support them, then the fact that [UConn] tolerated some of this previously under some other coach doesn’t really prohibit you from not tolerating it now. It has no real legal implications for this case, but it does create a bit of an optics issue.”

Fortunately, the law isn't dictated by "optics".

Will UConn look petty? Probably.
Should UConn save a boatload of cash? Absolutely.

 

[NJHusky]

My guess is that since the recent Scotus decision they can't compel anyone to be in the union and it "might" be possible to waive those rights

 

[HuskyHawk]

My guess is that since the recent Scotus decision they can't compel anyone to be in the union and it "might" be possible to waive those rights

That's one reason I said the union would lose if it really tried to push that. But even without it, it was only ever about pressure to toe the line, which Ollie will not feel.