The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Ollie case now in the hands of Herbst
The case between Kevin Ollie and the University of Connecticut will now go to the office of UConn President Susan Herbst, a source confirmed to Hearst Connecticut Media on Thursday.
Ollie had his hearing with the school on April 12 to challenge the university’s decision to fire him for just cause. UConn athletic director David Benedict served as the school’s hearing official, and reviewed a written response from Ollie and his representatives, including the school’s union, the American Association of University Professors. Benedict’s recommendation was to uphold the termination “for just cause.”
The union had seven days to appeal Benedict’s decision and Ollie has the right to have a hearing before Herbst within 15 days. If Herbst upholds Benedict’s decision, the case can be taken to arbitration — a process that could take weeks, even months. Ollie could eventually take the case to court if he were to lose an arbitration hearing. However, the sides could also come to an agreement at any time during the process.
Ollie was fired March 10. The Huskies were 14-18 this past season. UConn hired Dan Hurley as Ollie’s replacement on March 22.
In an April 3 letter to Herbst, Ollie’s legal team contended the school violated Ollie’s 14th Amendment rights by “subverting Coach Ollie’s opportunity to respond to charges and evidence in a meaningful way in advance of the deci-
sion to terminate his employment.”
Ollie’s lawyers contend that according to the school’s collective bargaining agreement, except for “serious misconduct,” Ollie could only be fired as the final step of a progressive disciplinary system where each instance of misconduct is judged on its own on factual merits.
With the NCAA not yet completing its investigation into UConn’s claims of serious noncompliance and with Dan Hurley being hired on March 22, the lawyers assert this is proof the school intended to fire Ollie regardless of whether there was “just cause.”
In the letter to Herbst, Ollie’s lawyers contend that
UConn had provided incomplete information along with two NCAA self-reporting forms concerning minor infractions related to Ollie and no progressive discipline was imposed.
Although there has been much speculation about what UConn’s assertions are in terminating Ollie, sources indicated to Hearst Connecticut Media’s Jeff Jacobs that they were all of a compliance nature and there were more than two infractions.
If UConn ultimately is successful in proving just cause for violating the terms of his contract, the school would not have to pay any of the more than $10 million owed to Ollie on a contract that expires in 2021.