MADSEN, PRESTLEY &PARENTEAU, LLC Representing Individuals in Employment and Benefits Law and Litigation Attorneys At Law Hartford & New London

Transcription

1 MADSEN, PRESTLEY &PARENTEAU, LLC Representing Individuals in Employment and Benefits Law and Litigation Attorneys At Law Hartford & New London 105 Huntington Street New London, Connecticut Telephone: (860) Facsimile: (860) VIA AND U.S. MAIL Susan Herbst, President University of Connecticut Office of the President 352 Mansfield Road, Unit 2048 Storrs, CT Re: Kevin J. Ollie v. University of Connecticut Dear President Herbst: Please be advised that this firm has been retained by Kevin J. Ollie in connection with matters not covered by the collective bargaining agreement with The University of Connecticut Chapter of the American Association of Union Professors ("AAUP"). Our representation of Coach Ollie includes constitutional and statutory claims arising from the termination of his employment and we will be assisting our client in his dealings with the University of Connecticut throughout the process of hearing and decision-making in cooperation with the AAUP and Mr. Lefft. From our review of the facts and circumstances relating to Coach Ollie's employment status, it is apparent that the University of Connecticut has already violated Coach's Ollie rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by subverting Coach Ollie's opportunity to respond to charges and evidence in a meaningful way in advance of the decision to terminate his employment. The public record, action taken, and authorized communications by representatives of the University of Connecticut, demonstrate that the decision to terminate Coach Ollie has already been made and therefore the University of Connecticut has effectively negated Coach Ollie's property right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The precedent for proper treatment of Coach Ollie could not be more precisely defined and more commonly known. The right to an prior notice and the right to be heard in advance of the deprivation of property rights has been required by the United States Supreme Court's decision since Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill,

2 Page 2of U.S. 532 (1985). Yet, the University of Connecticut has completely cast aside the protections underlying the Loudermill hearing process in order to satisfy an agenda that proves termination of Coach Ollie's employment is not for the reason stated in order to avoid paying him what he is due under the terms of a lawful contract, contrary to the University's past practice. To fully understand our position and understanding of the relevant facts of the case to date, please be aware of the following: Coach Ollie is employed by the University of Connecticut under a multi-year employment agreement through May 31, This employment agreement is in turn subject to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees and the University of Connecticut Chapter of the American Association of University Professors ("CSA"). At no time during his employment with the University of Connecticut has Coach Ollie been subjected to progressive discipline pursuant to the CSA for alleged NCAA infractions. On March 10, 2018, Director of Athletics David Benedict provided Coach Ollie with written notice of the University's intent to pursue termination of Coach Ollie's employment as Head Coach for just cause pursuant to section 10.1 (d) of his employment agreement and section of the CSA based on unspecified, vague claims of alleged unsubstantiated violations of NCAA rules and regulations. The University of Connecticut's Department of Athletics issued a public statement on March 10, 2018 stating it had "initiated disciplinary procedures to terminate the employment of Head Men's Basketball Coach Kevin Ollie for just cause." Article of the CSA, which applies to the Head Coach, provides that "except for serious misconduct, dismissal of a bargaining unit member in the titles covered in this Article should occur only as the final step is a progressive disciplinary system and each instance of misconduct shall be judged solely on its own factual situation merits." Article further provides that "dismissal during the term of an employment contract shall be for just cause," and defines "just cause" to include, in relevant part considering the March 10, 2018 letter, "serious noncompliance... with NCAA rules or regulations."

3 Page 3 of 10 Article further provides "procedures to be followed for dismissal," the first of which being the receipt "in writing" of "a statement of the reasons for the action being recommended." The Article procedures then provide for a hearing with the Director of Athletics followed by an "appellate hearing" to the President, presumably following a disagreement with "the recommendation" resulting from the hearing before the Director of Athletics, although no recommendation is specified in the prior step. Should the President decide to "demote, suspend without pay or dismiss" Coach Ollie, then such a decision can be appealed to "arbitration on the merits under Article 1 O" of the CBA. On March 22, 2018, the University of Connecticut announced that it had hired Dan Hurley for the sum of $2. 75 million to fill the role of Head Coach, and to replace Coach Ollie. On March 22, 2018, Interim General Counsel Nicole Gelston claimed, in an to Ricky Lefft, counsel to Coach Ollie, that Coach Ollie has no "property right in his continued employment." Attorney Gelston further stated that in the event that "just cause" is not established to terminate Coach Ollie's employment pursuant to the serious noncompliance section of the CBA, "then he will have been terminated for 'any reason other than just cause as defined in Article 10.1.' " To date, the NCAA has not completed its investigation related to the charges the University of Connecticut claims constitutes just cause to terminate based on serious noncompliance with NCAA rules and regulations. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: These facts conclusively prove that the University of Connecticut has decided to terminate Coach Ollie's employment regardless of whether there is "just cause" to do so under the CBA. but has initiated termination procedures under the "just cause" provision in order to save" millions of dollars," as has been reported by the New York Times. The United States Supreme Court has declared that pre-determined outcomes violate the Due Process clause that guarantees no man's life, liberty or property will be taken without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment defined as notice and opportunity to be heard before the deprivation has taken place: An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property "be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S. Ct. 652, 656, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950). We have described "the root requirement" of the Due Process Clause as being "that an individual be

4 Page 4 of 10 given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (emphasis in original); see Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 1591, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971 ). This principle requires "some kind of a hearing" prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S., at , 92 S.Ct., at 2705; Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 599, 92 S. Ct. 2694, 2698, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542 (emphasis in original). There is no question that Coach Ollie has a property interest in continued employment based upon the provisions in his employment agreement and in the CBA that specify dismissal can only be for "just cause." "A public employee has a property interest in continued employment if the employee is guaranteed continued employment absent 'just cause' for discharge." Ciambriello v. Cty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 2002); Moffitt v. Town of Brookfield, 950 F.2d 880, 885 (2d Cir. 1991). Having a right not to be fired without "just cause," Coach Ollie is entitled to a Loudermill hearing before being deprived of the property right in question - here, Coach Ollie's property right is continued employment as Head Coach. Loudermill can be satisfied by the procedures set forth in Articles 37.12, but only if those procedures are genuinely intended to address the constitutional right, and not provided simply as an expedient. Importantly, even in its most basic articulation, a Loudermill hearing must fully inform the employee of the charges against him and the evidence to support the charges so that a meaningful response may be provided. Claims of the existence of substantial, unspecified evidence to support a charge will not suffice, specification of the evidence is required. "The pretermination process 'need not be elaborate' or approach the level of a 'full adversarial evidentiary hearing,' but due process does require that before being terminated such an 'employee [be given] oral or written notice of the charges against h[er), an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present h[er] side of the story,' (emphasis added); see also Munafo v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 285 F.3d 201, 212 (2d Cir.2002)." Otero v. Bridgeport Hous. Auth., 297 F.3d 142, 151 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citation to Loudermill omitted). The District of Connecticut has recognized the principle that a predetermined outcome violates Loudermill. "Due process requires that, prior to termination, an employee be given the chance to tell her side of the story, and that the agency be willing to listen. Otherwise, the 'opportunity to respond' required by Loudermill is no opportunity at all." Ryan v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services, 185 F.3d 751, 762 (7th Cir.1999); see Wagnerv. City of Memphis, 971 F. Supp. 308, (W.D.Tenn.1997) (stating that, where the result of a pre-termination hearing had been predetermined, "the concerns and goals of the pre-termination hearing as set forth in Loudermill have not been met."). Levesque v. Town of Vernon, 341 F. Supp. 2d 126, (D. Conn. 2004).

5 Page 5 of 10 As an employee with a property interest in continued employment, Coach Ollie has already been denied due process because he has been replaced by Mr. Hurley before Coach Ollie had the opportunity to participate in a Loudermill hearing. Regardless of whether Mr. Benedict's decision to replace Coach Ollie with Mr. Hurley would have been likely to change, the denial of a hearing prior to making the change violates Coach Ollie constitutional rights. For example, in Otero v. Colligan, 2006 WL (D. Conn. May 17, 2006), the District Court found the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when the employee was denied a hearing prior to the decision to fill the position the employee had a right to occupy. Otero v. Colligan, 2006 WL , at *14. ("The balance of these three factors weighs decidedly in favor of affording Sgt. Otero notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard before the appointment of a new lieutenant was made.") Because it is evident that Director of Athletics David Benedict made the decision to replace Coach Ollie before any meaningful opportunity to be heard, in violation of Coach Ollie's constitutional rights, we hereby demand that Mr. Benedict be replaced as the decision-maker at the hearing mandated by Article and that the University substitute a suitable replacement who has not been involved in the deliberations associated with this employment decision. Furthermore, regardless of the identity of the person who conducts the Loudermill hearing, we insist that the University of Connecticut provide Coach Ollie with a meaningful opportunity to respond to the false charges against him as required by the precedent cited. While acknowledging that representatives of the University of Connecticut have provided some incomplete information, along with two NCAA selfreporting forms concerning minor infractions related to Coach Ollie (for which no progressive discipline was imposed at the time), let it be understood that Coach Ollie fully expects the University of Connecticut will provide a Loudermill hearing that respects and complies with the Fourteenth Amendment. Coach Ollie is not expected to, nor is he required to, cull through pages of documents on short notice to determine for himself what the evidence there is (if any) to support the non-specific charges of alleged NCAA infractions set forth in the March 10, 2018 letter. Coach Ollie is not required to examine these documents in order to determine whether the actions reflect "serious noncompliance" with NCAA rules and regulati9ns. Indeed, as the NCAA has not yet completed its investigation of these alleged infractions, the University will be hard pressed to establish "just cause" under the terms of the CBA.

6 Page 6 of 10 Freedom of Information Act Request: Another purpose of this letter is to request that the University of Connecticut provide immediate access to investigation related information in response to this letter. This information is required for the defense of the University's attempt to terminate Coach Ollie's employment, as well as to further assess the claims and causes of action that may be brought in judicial forums. Pursuant to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, 1-210, et. seq. ("FOIA") we are requesting access to, and selected copies of documents following inspection of: 1. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the decision to initiate the procedure to terminate the employment of Kevin Ollie with the University of Connecticut. 2. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the factual basis for the "University's determination that you [Kevin Ollie] violated NCAA bylaws or otherwise engaged in behaviors that violate the terms of your Employment Agreement and the AAUP contract," as stated in the March 10, 2018 letter from David Benedict to Kevin Ollie. 3. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the factual basis for the claim in the March 10, 2018 letter from David Benedict to Kevin Ollie that "[t]he University believes that these violations include but are not limited to your[kevin Ollie's] failure to promote compliance... " 4. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the factual basis for the claim in the March 10, 2018 letter from David Benedict to Kevin Ollie that "(t]he University believes that these violations include but are not limited to your[kevin Ollie's]... failure to timely report instances of noncompliance... " 5. All publ,ic records, documents, and communications relating to the factual basis for the claim in the March 10, 2018 letter from David Benedict to Kevin Ollie that "[t]he University believes that these violations include but are not limited to your[kevin Ollie's]... intentional participation in an impermissible on-campus activity with a prospective student-athlete during an official visit.... " 6. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the factual basis for the claim in the March 10, 2018 letter from David Benedict to Kevin Ollie that "[t]he University believes that these violations include but are not limited to your[kevin Ollie's]... intentional facilitation of a prohibited contact between a

7 Page 7 of 10 prospective student-athlete and a representative of the institution's athletics interests for recruiting purposes" 7. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the factual basis for the claim in the March 10, 2018 letter from David Benedict to Kevin Ollie that "[t]hese behaviors and others violate the terms of your Employment Agreement, including but not limited to Article 4, and constitute, individually and/or collectively, just cause as defined in Article 10.1 (d), and/or Article of the AAUP contract." 8. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the employment of Kevin Ollie with the University of Connecticut during the time period from the date of his initial hire as Head Coach to the present. 9. All public records, documents, and communications relating to the recruitment and hiring of Dan Hurley by the University of Connecticut. 10.All public records, documents, and communications relating to the recruitment or consideration of any individuals for employment as the Head Men's Basketball Coach of the University of Connecticut during the time period of January 1, 2017 to the present. 11.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any potential or alleged NCAA violations involving the Men's Basketball program at the University of Connecticut during the period when Kevin Ollie was the Head Coach of that program. 12.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any potential or alleged NCAA violations involving the Men's Basketball program at the University of Connecticut during the period when Jim Calhoun was the Head Coach of that program. 13.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any NCAA rule violations involving the Men's Basketball program at the University of Connecticut during the period when Jim Calhoun was the Head Coach of that program. 14.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any notice of inquiry from the NCAA involving the Men's Basketball program at the University of Connecticut during the period when Jim Calhoun was the Head Coach of that program. 15.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any notice of allegations from the NCAA involving the Men's Basketball program at the

8 Page 8of10 University of Connecticut during the period when Jim Calhoun was the Head Coach of that program. 16. All public records, documents, and communications relating to any discipline imposed against Jim Calhoun by the University of Connecticut during the period when he was the Head Coach of the Men's Basketball program at the University of Connecticut. 17.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any discipline or sanctions imposed by the NCAA against Jim Calhoun or the Men's Basketball Program of the University of Connecticut relating to the time period when Jim Calhoun was the Head Coach of the Men's Basketball team at the University of Connecticut. 18. Al l public records, documents, and communications relating to any potential or alleged NCAA violations relating to any athletic program of the University of Connecticut since All public records, documents, and communications relating to any notice of inquiry from the NCAA relating to any athletic program of the University of Connecticut since All public records, documents, and communications relating to any notice of allegations from the NCAA relating to any athletic program of the University of Connecticut since All public records, documents, and communications relating to any discipline or sanctions imposed by the NCAA against Head Coach of any athletic program of the University of Connecticut during the time period of 1998 to the present. 22.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any discipline imposed by the University of Connecticut against the Head Coach of any athletic program of the University of Connecticut during the time period of 1998 to the present. 23. All public records, documents, and communications relating to any training that was provided to Kevin Ollie relating to compliance with NCAA rules and regulations during the period when he was employed by the University of Connecticut as the Head Men's Basketball Coach. 24. All public records, documents, and communications reflecting that the University of Connecticut communicated any concerns to Kevin Ollie regarding his performance as the Head Men's Basketball Coach before March 10, 2018.

9 Page 9of All public records, documents, and communications reflecting that the University of Connecticut provided Kevin Ollie with any type of progressive discipline during his tenure as the Head Men's Basketball Coach before March 10, All public records, documents, and communications relating any communication between any person employed by the University of Connecticut and Jim Calhoun since September 1, All public records, documents, and communications relating to any payment from the University of Connecticut to Jim Calhoun since January 1, All public records, documents, and communications relating to any contract between Jim Calhoun and the University of Connecticut covering any years from January 1, 2005 to the present. 29. All invoices from the firm of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC. 30.All invoices from the firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC. 31.All invoices from any third party, firm, or vendor relating to any NCAA investigation during the period when Jim Calhoun was the Head Men's Basketball Coach of the University of Connecticut. 32.All invoices from any third party, firm, or vendor relating to any NCAA investigation during the period when Kevin Ollie was the Head Men's Basketball Coach of the University of Connecticut. 33. All public records, documents, and communications relating to any and all NCAA Major Rules violations self-reported by the University from January 1, 2009 through March 25, 2018 delineated by: A. Men's and Women's Head Coach self-reporting. B. UCONN Compliance Office self-reporting. 34. All public records, documents, and communications relating to any and all NCAA Major Rules violations discovered by the NCAA from January 1, 2009 through March 25, All public records, documents, and communications relating to any and all NCAA Minor Rules violations self-reported by the University from January 1, 2009 through March 25, 2018 delineated by:

10 Page 10of10 A. Men's and Women's Head Coach self-reporting. B. UCONN Compliance Office self-reporting. 36. All public records, documents, and communications relating to ahy and all NCAA Minor Rules violations discovered by the NCAA from January 1, March 25, Please direct a representative of the University to contact us with respect to the manner of access and review, as well as arrangements and cost of copying, if any. Finally, please take immediate steps to preserve evidence relates to th e claims that arise by this proposed illegal termination of Coach Ollie's em ployment. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our firm. y truly yours, JJP/vaw cc: Kevin J. Ollie Dannel P. Malloy, Governor George Jepsen, Attorney General Thomas Kruger, Esq., Chair of the Board of Trustees Michael Bailey, Executive Director of the CT AAUP Rachel Rubin, Chief of Staff to the President