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

105 Huntington Street
New London, Connec ticut 06320
Telephone: (860) 442-2466
Facsimile : (860) 447-9206
iparenteau@mppiustice.com

April 3, 2018
VIA EMAIL: Susan.Herbst@UConn.edu
AND U.S. MAIL
Susan Herbst, President
University of Connecticut
Office of the President
352 Mansfield Road, Unit 2048
Storrs, CT 06269-2048
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,

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
Page 2of10

470 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, 2021 . 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 37 .12 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 37.12 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 37 .12 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."

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
Page 3 of 10

•

Article 37.12 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 37 .12 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 1O" 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 email
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

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
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 569- 570, 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, 318-19 (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, 134-35 (D. Conn. 2004).

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
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
1438711 (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 1438711, 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 37 .12 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.

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
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

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
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 37.12 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 commun ications relating to any notice of
allegations from the NCAA involving the Men's Basketball program at the

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
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 1998.
19.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 1998.
20. 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 1998.
21 .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.

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
Page 9of10

25. 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, 2018.
26. All public records, documents, and communications relating any communication
between any person employed by the University of Connecticut and Jim Calhoun
since September 1, 2012.
27.All public records, documents, and communications relating to any payment from
the University of Connecticut to Jim Calhoun since January 1, 2005.
28.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, 2018.
35.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:

 Susan Herbst, President
April 3, 2018
Page 10of10

A.
B.

Men's and Women's Head Coach self-reporting .
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, 2009 - March
25, 2018.
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