LINK
Tim Sullivan | Louisville Courier Journal | 4 hours ago
The $40 million question is as follows: Though Rick Pitino’s University of Louisville contract says he is “presumed to be responsible” for the actions of all those who report to him, did his dismissal qualify as a “just cause” firing?
A supplemental exhibit filed Wednesday in Pitino’s breach-of-contract suit against the University of Louisville Athletic Association includes an excerpt from the Nov. 2 deposition of former U of L athletic director Tom Jurich in which Jurich testifies it was “absolutely” his understanding that Pitino could not be fired for conduct he knew nothing about.
That contention is central to Pitino’s motion for summary judgment, and it is one ULAA lawyers vigorously disputed in a previous motion filed in June.
"Pitino cannot go back in time," the motion said. "The addition of the presumed responsibility language was an effort by the NCAA to avoid exactly the argument Pitino is making in this case. Pitino’s defense of 'I didn’t know' is no longer valid. Pitino was responsible for the actions of his staff members, whether he knew about them or not."
Related: Ex-Adidas fixer testifies Rick Pitino didn't know of Bowen payment
Three of Pitino’s former subordinates have been implicated in the two major scandals that have embroiled U of L’s basketball program since the fall of 2015.
The NCAA imposed a 10-year “show cause” penalty on Andre McGee, U of L’s former director of basketball operations, for his role in the stripper scandal that resulted in the vacation of the 2013 men’s basketball championship. Former assistant coaches Kenny Johnson and Jordan Fair have been implicated in the federal investigation of the bribery scheme behind the recruitment of Brian Bowen.
Legislation adopted by the NCAA Board of Directors in 2012 held head coaches responsible for the actions of their staff members, eliminating the sanctuary of plausible deniability in infractions cases that often centered on the conduct of assistant coaches.
“We expect head coaches to provide practices and training and written materials that instruct their assistant coaches how to act,” Oregon State president Ed Ray, chairman of the NCAA’s executive committee, explained at the time. “If they’ve done that, it can become mitigating evidence that they shouldn’t be held accountable for what (a staff member) did.
"But head coaches have to have these things in place or the presumption will be that they didn’t care enough to set standards and take responsibility for their programs. If there is no guidance and an assistant goes rogue, then it’s partly the head coach’s fault and he/she should be held accountable.”
Previously: ULAA objects to Andre McGee's intervention in Rick Pitino lawsuit
Pitino has insisted he was vigilant about his supervisory responsibilities; that he repeatedly instructed his staff, “Don’t even think about jaywalking.”
The motion filed Wednesday says the dispute between ULAA and Pitino arises, in part, from contractual language concerning what constitutes a major violation and who determines whether one has been committed. ULAA’s position is that the NCAA makes that determination and that Pitino’s alleged “failure to monitor” McGee qualified as a Level 1 violation.
Pitino’s attorneys claim the contract provides just cause for firing only if Pitino personally violated a major rule. Jurich testified that determination would be “left up to the university.” To that end, interim president Greg Postel’s initial response to NCAA sanctions related to the stripper scandal was that the ruling was “unfair to Coach Pitino, who we believe could not have known about the illicit activities.”
Four months later, following news of the FBI investigation and ULAA’s unanimous vote to fire Pitino, Postel reversed his stance on the coach’s culpability.
“Your involvement in these recent scandals cannot be considered isolated events,” Postel wrote. “Instead, they are illustrative of a pattern and practice of inappropriate behavior."
ULAA attorney Barbara Edelman declined to comment Wednesday on Pitino's motion.
Read more: Contradictions aside, Rick Pitino yearns for another shot at coaching
Tim Sullivan | Louisville Courier Journal | 4 hours ago
The $40 million question is as follows: Though Rick Pitino’s University of Louisville contract says he is “presumed to be responsible” for the actions of all those who report to him, did his dismissal qualify as a “just cause” firing?
A supplemental exhibit filed Wednesday in Pitino’s breach-of-contract suit against the University of Louisville Athletic Association includes an excerpt from the Nov. 2 deposition of former U of L athletic director Tom Jurich in which Jurich testifies it was “absolutely” his understanding that Pitino could not be fired for conduct he knew nothing about.
That contention is central to Pitino’s motion for summary judgment, and it is one ULAA lawyers vigorously disputed in a previous motion filed in June.
"Pitino cannot go back in time," the motion said. "The addition of the presumed responsibility language was an effort by the NCAA to avoid exactly the argument Pitino is making in this case. Pitino’s defense of 'I didn’t know' is no longer valid. Pitino was responsible for the actions of his staff members, whether he knew about them or not."
Related: Ex-Adidas fixer testifies Rick Pitino didn't know of Bowen payment
Three of Pitino’s former subordinates have been implicated in the two major scandals that have embroiled U of L’s basketball program since the fall of 2015.
The NCAA imposed a 10-year “show cause” penalty on Andre McGee, U of L’s former director of basketball operations, for his role in the stripper scandal that resulted in the vacation of the 2013 men’s basketball championship. Former assistant coaches Kenny Johnson and Jordan Fair have been implicated in the federal investigation of the bribery scheme behind the recruitment of Brian Bowen.
Legislation adopted by the NCAA Board of Directors in 2012 held head coaches responsible for the actions of their staff members, eliminating the sanctuary of plausible deniability in infractions cases that often centered on the conduct of assistant coaches.
“We expect head coaches to provide practices and training and written materials that instruct their assistant coaches how to act,” Oregon State president Ed Ray, chairman of the NCAA’s executive committee, explained at the time. “If they’ve done that, it can become mitigating evidence that they shouldn’t be held accountable for what (a staff member) did.
"But head coaches have to have these things in place or the presumption will be that they didn’t care enough to set standards and take responsibility for their programs. If there is no guidance and an assistant goes rogue, then it’s partly the head coach’s fault and he/she should be held accountable.”
Previously: ULAA objects to Andre McGee's intervention in Rick Pitino lawsuit
Pitino has insisted he was vigilant about his supervisory responsibilities; that he repeatedly instructed his staff, “Don’t even think about jaywalking.”
The motion filed Wednesday says the dispute between ULAA and Pitino arises, in part, from contractual language concerning what constitutes a major violation and who determines whether one has been committed. ULAA’s position is that the NCAA makes that determination and that Pitino’s alleged “failure to monitor” McGee qualified as a Level 1 violation.
Pitino’s attorneys claim the contract provides just cause for firing only if Pitino personally violated a major rule. Jurich testified that determination would be “left up to the university.” To that end, interim president Greg Postel’s initial response to NCAA sanctions related to the stripper scandal was that the ruling was “unfair to Coach Pitino, who we believe could not have known about the illicit activities.”
Four months later, following news of the FBI investigation and ULAA’s unanimous vote to fire Pitino, Postel reversed his stance on the coach’s culpability.
“Your involvement in these recent scandals cannot be considered isolated events,” Postel wrote. “Instead, they are illustrative of a pattern and practice of inappropriate behavior."
ULAA attorney Barbara Edelman declined to comment Wednesday on Pitino's motion.
Read more: Contradictions aside, Rick Pitino yearns for another shot at coaching
