The University of Connecticut Chapter of 1875 Storrs Road

Storrs, Connecticut 06268

Campus Mail: AAUP, U-6028
WWW.UCONNAAUP.ORG
Telephone: (860) 487-0450

TH E AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, INC.

Fax: (860) 487-0341

May 10, 2018

Susan Herbst
President
University of Connecticut

Dear President Herbst,

On April 24, 2018, UConn-AAUP received Athletic Director David Benedict's recommendation to
terminate Coach Kevin Ollie for just cause after receiving our written response to the Article 37.12(B)(ii)
hearing. UConn-AAUP and Coach Ollie have exercised our option pursuant to Article 37.12(B)(ii i) to appeal that
recommendation in a hearing before you to take place on May 11, 2018. In advance of that hearing, UConn-
AAUP would like to offer the following observations in response to Athletic Director Benedict's
recommendation letter.

Introduction

First and foremost, you should be troubled by the disservice Athletic Director Benedict has done to the
University of Connecticut ("UConn") and Coach Ollie by this recommendation . Clearly, the Administration
lacks "just cause," as defined by the collective bargaining agreement with the University of Connecticut
Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (UConn-AAUP), to terminate Coach Ollie's
employment. Yet the Administration has declared, through statements made by its counsel and through the
hiring of Coach Hurley as Coach Ollie's replacement that it intends to terminate its employment relationship
with Coach Ollie regardless of whether just cause exists to do so. Through these statements and actions, the
Administration is demonstrating that Athletic Director Benedict's reliance on alleged NCAA infractions as the
"serious misconduct" necessary to establish "just cause" is pretext to disguise an alternative, pernicious
motive. As will be seen by a close evaluation of the evidence that Athletic Director Benedict claims to have
relied upon to arrive at his recommendation, evidence that UConn-AAUP has examined in detail now that
Director Benedict has finally and belatedly described the factual basis for his charges, the alleged actions of
Coach Ollie that are claimed to rise to the level of "serious misconduct" amount to nothing more than possible
de minimus infractions of NCAA rules. We refer to these actions as possible de minimus infractions because
the NCAA's Committee on Infractions has yet to determine whether any infraction exists in the first place.

As the chief executive officer of UConn responsible for the integrity of the institution, you should be
disturbed that Athletic Director Benedict has decided to indict both Coach Ollie and his program as part of a
blatant attempt to avoid paying Coach Ollie the money that is due to him by virtue of the employment
agreement that Coach Ollie and the UConn entered into in 2016. Please know that it is your responsibility to
ensure that UConn is held to the highest standards and that Athletic Director Benedict's recommendation falls

1
far short of that mark. Should you join Athletic Director Benedict's misguided effort to circumvent the
UConn's contractual obligation to Coach Ollie by signing on to his pretextual case for termination, then his
unsupportable decision will also be your decision, and it will be your legacy as well as UConn's reputation that
will be tarnished when the arbitrator overturns this term ination for lack of just cause.

Coach Ollie is an individual whose connection to UConn's basketball program is both historic and was
made possible by your decision to hire him Ollie at the commencement of your tenure. He is an honorable
man, and as a Head Coach you credited him with driving the process to make the UConn's student-athletes
compliant with excellence in both academic standards and athletic performance in 2014. As President of
UConn, you have the power to halt this injustice that is both palpable and profound, not just by a clear-eyed
review of the alleged evidence that has been relied upon to support Athletic Director Benedict's claim of
"serious misconduct" amounting to "just cause" under the CBA, but that is also found in comparing UConn's
prior treatment of Coach Calhoun to the way the UConn's Athletic Director has chosen to treat Coach Ollie. As
noted herein, Athletic Director's claim to a higher standard cannot be supported when his treatment of Coach
Ollie is compared to similar conduct displayed in the women's basketball program under the stewardship of
Coach Auriemma and the subject of self-reporting is closely examined. Athletic Director Benedict's attempt to
distance UConn from the standards and treatment applicable to Coach Calhoun when Coach Calhoun was
found by the NCAA to have committed several serious violations of NCAA rules from the standards and
treatment currently being applied to Coach Ollie will not succeed, either in a labor arbitration, federal
courthouse or in the court of public opinion.

We hope you find the moral courage to put a halt to this injustice and do what is necessary to restore
the good name and reputation of Coach Ollie and reject the recommendation of Athletic Director Benedict.

Employment Agreement and the AAUP Collective Agreement

To be clear, your decision to accept the recommendation of Athletic Director Benedict must be based
upon a determination that Coach Ollie has engaged in " serious misconduct" that arises to the "just cause"
standard contained in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which is the controlling document governing
the termination decision. Any attempt to circumvent the CBA - an apparent and misguided strategy of
UConn's legal counsel - is bound to fail in arbitration. Simply stated, Athletic Director Benedict is wrong in his
assertion that the Employment Agreement (EA) between Coach Ollie and UConn is the controlling document
governing the definition of "just cause" . It has been well established that whenever an individual employment
contract conflicts with a collective bargaining agreement, the latter necessarily prevails . J./. Case Co. v Labor
Board, 321 U.S. 332, 337-339 (1944); Barbieri v. United Techs. Corp., 225 Conn 708, 728-29 (2001); Abreu v.
Svenhard's Swedish Bakery, 208 Cal. App. 3d 1446, 1453 (1989). The law further states, that " in negotiating an
individual contract, an employer may not incidental ly exact or obtain any diminution of his own obligation or
any increase of those employees in the matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement." J./. Case Co
v. National labor Relations Board, supra; see also Thomas v. LTV Corp., 39 F.3d 611, 617-18 (5th Cir. 1994)
(terms are inconsistent when those of the collective bargaining agreement limit or condition those in an
individual contract; ind ividual agreement negotiated by employee, union and employer governing minimum
attendance requirements and modifying discharge procedure in collective bargaining agreement preempted).
Thus, it is clear that an individual employment contract may provide additional benefits beyond the minimum
terms of the collective bargain ing agreement, but an individual employment contract may not subtract such
benefits in a way that falls below the thresholds provided in the CBA. By giving the employer more grounds to

2
terminate an employment (i.e., more specific examples of what constitutes "just cause") beyond what is
required under the terms of the CBA would impermissibly limit the rights of the bargaining unit member.

As applied to the facts in this case, there is an inconsistency presented by the language in Article 10 of
the Employment Agreement, which will not be interpreted to provide less protection than the CBA by the
arbitrator. While Article lO(d) in the Employment Agreement provides a definition of "just cause" that
attempts to modify the CBA (although the meaning of the phrase in subsection (1) is unclear based on its
incomprehensible phrasing), Article lO(e) states that in the event the Coach is removed for "just cause", the
procedures contained in Article 13 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall control. If the procedures in
Article 13 are controlling then, consistent with J./. Case Co v. National Labor Relations Board, UConn must
apply the definition of "just cause" found in the CBA should there be any conflict between the individual
Employment Agreement and the CBA. Also, Article lO(e) states that in the event there is a new CBA, any
provision pertaining to discipline or termination of bargaining unit members not in a tenure track shall apply
to this agreement. Since Article 13 is no longer applicable based upon the adoption of the new language in
Article 37 of the CBA, the language in Article 37 is therefore incorporated into the Employment Agreement
and controls. According to Article 37.12, "except for serious misconduct, dismissal of a bargaining unit
member in the titles covered in this Article should occur only as a final step in a progressive disciplinary system
with each instance of misconduct shall be judged solely on its own factual merit." For any claim of "just
cause" involving NCAA rules, Section A(ii) states "just cause" is defined to mean "serious noncompliance ... with
NCAA rules or regulations."

NCAA Bylaws

The CBA does not allow a finding of "just cause" in the absence of "serious noncompliance" and "each
instance of misconduct shall be judged solely on its own factual situation merits." Thus, "serious misconduct"
amounting to "serious noncompliance" has to be grounded in what the NCAA considers serious
noncompliance, and not what Athletic Director Benedict believes is a violation of NCAA rules and regulations.
NCAA Bylaw 11.2.1 (Stipulation That NCAA Enforcement Provisions Apply) requires that contractual
agreements shall include language requiring disciplinary or corrective action if a coach is found in violation of
NCAA regulations, and those disciplinary or corrective actions are "as set forth in the provisions of NCAA
infractions process." NCAA Bylaw 19.1 (Violation Structure of the Infractions Program) defines the levels of
violations with a selection of examples. They range from a Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I), to a Significant
Breach of Conduct (Level II Violation), to a Breach of Conduct (Level Ill). Level I is further defined as one or
more violations that "seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Model" which include
"providing or intending to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive advantage, or a
substantial or extensive impermissible benefit." A level II Violation is defined as "one or more violations that
provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting
competitive or other advantage; or extensive impermissible benefit; or involve conduct that may compromise
the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. Examples of these violations "do not rise to the level of level I
violations and are more serious than Level Ill violations." Level Ill violations are defined as a significant breach
of conduct that "provide or are intended to provide no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other
advantage; and provide no more than a minimal impermissible benefit. UConn-AAUP will argue that the
"serious misconduct" or "serious noncompliance" must equate to a Level I violation. Thus, even if a some of
the incidents Athletic Director Benedict cited as violations are found to be violations by the NCAA Infractions
Committee (which cannot be known now since the NCAA Enforcement section has not even issued a Notice of

3
Allegations) the conduct described by Athletic Director Benedict (which is contested) does not rise to more
than a de minimus Level Ill violation and cannot equal "just cause" under the CSA.

UConn-AAUP's Response to Specific Claims Made by Athletic Director Benedict

As noted above, not until the April 24, 2018 recommendation of Athletic Director Benedict has Coach
Ollie and the UConn-AAUP been advised of the evidence actually relied upon to support the charges first
expressed in the March 10, 2018 letter that was the catalyst for this process. To the extent that our response
refers to evidence that was obtained by the Administration following the March 10, 2018 letter stating that
"just cause" existed on that date to terminate Coach Ollie's employment, please be aware that our reference
to such testimony or evidence is without waiver to UConn-AAUP's position that after-acquired evidence
cannot be used to support the claim that "just cause" existed on March 10, 2018. In reviewing the UConn-
AAUP response, please also note that the main support for the charges against Coach Ollie resides with
individuals who are known to be biased against Coach Ollie and who have motive to be biased based on the
fact that Coach Ollie terminated their employment with UConn. By and large, the testimony of Coach Ollie's
principal accuser, Glen Miller, is inconsistent, vague and conclusory. UConn-AAUP has been able to
disassemble Athletic Director Benedict's case despite the fact that attorneys defending Coach Ollie have not
been permitted to participate in the process of questioning, nor have they engaged in the discovery allowed
by the arbitration process based in part on the ongoing NCAA investigation. When provided with the
opportunity to vigorously investigate and defend this case, it is more likely than not that the claims of Athletic
Director Benedict will be further eroded. In other words, what is examined below is the best-case scenario for
UConn's position and it is likely to get worse as t ime goes by and we are allowed to engage in further defense
of this case. Finally, you should be concerned that Athletic Director Benefit has on more than one occasion
made selective reference to testimony given by witnesses in order to support his pre-determined decision to
fire Coach Ollie in order to wrongly remove him from his position.

I Ray Allen Call

Allegation: The call was prearranged

Athletic Director Benedict has cherry picked testimony to support his unfounded allegation that Coach
Kevin Ollie prearranged a call between and Ray Allen during a Christmas holiday party at
Coach Ollie's house. While Athletic Director Benedict's selective view of the evidence suffice for the purpose
of his pre-determined recommendation, a neutral arbitrator will not view such partiality with favor. Athletic
Director Benedict's conclusory finding is ultimately undermined by the overwhelming weight of the evidence
demonstrating there was no "serious noncompliance" involved in this situation .

Glen Miller testified that Coach Dwayne Killings and Coach Ollie allegedly took Miller's prize recruit into
a back room for a private conversation (p. 374). However, Miller's testimony on this point is directly
contradicted by other interviewees. According to Coach Ollie, he and the recruit were speaking when they
were approached by Miller (p. 730). Coach Ollie never mentioned being with Coach Killings at the time (pp.
725-735). Larib testified that Coach Ollie and the recruit, only, were separated from the group when she went
and provided her iPad (p. 844). Finally, Coach Killings, himself, testified that he had no idea that Ray Allen ever
called during the recruit's visit that night (pp. 234-36). On one page, Miller testifies that Coach Ollie and Coach
Killings went into another room with the recruit to make the call (p. 374), however, on the next page Miller
states that he learned of the call because the recruit posted of the call on SnapChat (p. 375 ). As is systemic of

4
much of Miller's unreliable testimony, Miller can't remember how he learned that the recruit posted about
the call on SnapChat (Id). Miller's biased testimony is consistently inconsistent and is rebutted by the
testimony of impartial witnesses.

Ath letic Director Benedict alleges that the Ray Allen call was prearranged by Coach Ollie, yet Glen
Miller's testimony and the testimony of others directly contradicts this assertion . Athletic Director Benedict
cites pp. 377-340 as evidence that the call with Ray Allen was prearranged. However, no such conclusion can
be drawn from Miller's testimony within those pages.

For example, Miller testified he didn't recall Coach Ollie ever telling the recruit that a FaceTime call
would be set up with former players (p. 377). Miller testified that he thought the prospect of having recruits
speak with former players was discussed at staff meetings (p. 378). Miller, once again, testified that he
couldn't remember who initiated the vague, undefined conversation surrounding this topic (p. 378). When
asked whether Coach Ollie approved staff to move forward with coordinating a call, Miller did not directly
respond, instead offering his opinion on the subject by stating, "I think he wanted it to be coordinated, yes" (p.
379) . Investigators failed to follow up on Miller's non-answer and when investigators attempted to ask
another question, Miller interrupted and concluded, without support, "I would say that he approved it, yes.
And I don't recall who - I don't recall it being coordinated thereafter until - you know, I was at the house that
night, and I know that Dwayne went with - got Coach Ollie and [Recruit] and they went off to another room,
and that is my recollection, that the call occurred with that" (p. 379). Yet, as stated above, Coach Killings was
not present for the call (See pp. 234-36, 725-35, 844). Additionally, Miller cannot recall a single specific fact
supporting his biased opinion that Coach Ollie prearranged the call with Ray Allen.

When pressed for specifics about the discussion to organize the call with Ray Allen, or another former
player, Miller backed off and admitted, yet again, that he didn't have any specific recollections (p. 380). When
pressed again regarding specifics of the alleged coordination, Miller again retracted his earlier statement and
admitted, "If I said coordinated, I don't know if I necessarily meant that. I just -you know, I need to be vague
about this because I really don't have specifics" (p. 384). On the next page of his testimony, Miller again
admitted that he had no recollection of Coach Ollie instructing any member of the staff to coordinate the call
(p. 385). On the one hand Miller confidently asserts such very specific, and very wrong, details as the
attendees of the call, upon which Athletic Director Benedict relies. On the other hand, Miller repeatedly
adm its that he does not possess specific details about any of the events surrounding the call, testimony which
Athletic Director Benedict conveniently ignores.

If Coach Ollie didn't instruct Miller to coordinate the call, then certainly Coach Ollie would have
instructed another staff member to coordinate the call with Ray Allen. However, not a single other staff
member, coach, assistant, or other individual interviewed by investigators remembers any discussion about
having former players call recruits nor remembers any instructions to coordinate such a call. Coach Ricky
Moore testified that no discussions occurred among coaching staff to introduce the recruit to former players
(p. 600). Coach Killings testified that he didn't recall any discussions among staff to try and place recruits on
phone calls with former players (pp. 232-36). Kevin Freeman testified that he also didn' t recall any discussions
among staff about placing recruits on phone ca lls or in meetings with former players (p. 1218).

Finally, Athletic Director Benedict relies on the testimony of Larib Omara-Otunnu to support his
assertion that the Ray Allen call was pre-planned, citing to an eleven page section of her transcript as
support-only five of which contain any testimony related to the Ray Allen call (pp. 844-848). The only

5
testimony from which one could infer support for Athletic Director Benedict's position stems from the
following exchange:

RR: Did y'all talk about that before that night or - that ya'll were going - that
they were going to try to set that up, or -

LO: Yes, I think so.

RR : When was that?

LO: I don't remember. I mean, this is years ago.

(p. 844). However, Athletic Director Benedict conveniently omits the remainder of Ms. Omara-Otunnu's
testimony that contradicts his unfounded allegation. Ms. Omara-Otunnu went on to testify that she couldn't
recall exactly where or when any alleged pre-planning conversations occurred and she never provided
specifics as to her conclusory allegation that the call may have been pre-planned (p. 845) . Ms. Omara-Otunnu
further testified that she was not present for staff meetings, where Glen Miller testified the alleged pre-
planning likely occurred:

RR: Do you ever sit in on those coaches' meetings?

LO: No.

(p. 830, see also p. 848).

Call with Ray Allen: Even if True Not Serious Noncompliance

Even if the Enforcement Staff determined that Coach Ollie's actions regarding the Ray Allen phone call
constituted a violation of NCAA legislation, such a violation would only rise to a Level Ill because the conduct
was inadvertent and isolated. To illustrate the point, Coach Ollie raises two case precedents, one of which
made its way into the popular media. In March 2013, Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer received a
phone call from a highly regarded recruit while he was at lunch. Coach Meyer informed the prospect that he
was on vacation and was having lunch with family and friends, including former Heisman Trophy winner Tim
Tebow, a former player of Meyer's at the University of Florida. The prospect asked to speak with Tebow and
Coach Meyer handed him the phone and the two spoke for approximately eight seconds. Coach Meyer
reported that no recruiting conversation occurred, he did not intend to have Tebow recruit the prospect, and,
in fact, Tebow did not recruit the prospect on behalf of Ohio State. Coach Meyer reported that no member of
the Ohio State football staff instructed the prospect to call at that time and that Tebow never spoke to any
other Ohio State prospects. Coach Meyer indicated that he understood that the communication between
Tebow and the prospect was an "error" on his part but maintained that his action was a reflexive, courteous
action rather an intentional attempt to involve Tebow in the recruiting process. See NCAA RSRO Case No.
348645. The institution self-reported the noncompliance and the enforcement staff agreed that Meyer's
actions constituted a secondary violation.

Similarly and more recently, a women's basketball head coach set up a phone call with a prominent
alum and impermissible caller while making a home visit to a prospect in September 2016 and gave the phone

6
 to the prospect. See NCAA RSRO Case No. 958148. The prospect and alum spoke about all aspects of the
university, including recruiting and the basketball program. The instance of noncompliance was not reported
by the sport but was discovered about one week later by compliance when a staff member saw the prospect
posted a tweet about the phone call. The enforcement staff classified this conduct as Level Ill. Comparing
Coach Ollie's actions to these two head coaches is instructive for how the enforcement staff could view his
conduct in this case. Coach Ollie admits to the phone call with Ray Allen and that- and Allen spoke on
the phone for a few minutes in his house during~fficial visit during the Christmas holiday break.
Coach Ollie and Allen are friends from their time in the NBA and are fellow UConn alumni. Coach Ollie, unlike
the women's basketball head coach during a home visit, did not prearrange the phone call with Ray Allen.
Coach Ollie stated that Allen called to wish his family "Merry Christmas" and spoke to members of Coach
Ollie's family and enrolled student athletes. Coach Ollie maintains that Glenn Miller is the one who initiated
- involvement in the Allen phone call by approaching him and asking if - could speak with Allen.
Similar to Coach Urban Meyer, Coach Ollie was "reflexive" and "courteous" and put - on the phone with
Al len for a few minutes. While the institution had an obligation and rightly self-reported the purported
noncompliant conduct, Coach Ollie's conduct was an isolated and inadvertent incident.

If enforcement staff concludes a violation occurred, they will, at most, conclude such a violation to be
Level Ill, just like Coach Meyer and the women's basketball coach above. In essence, there was no effort or
intention to have Allen recruit - and there is no credible information adduced through the NCAA
investigation that there was any effort or intention by Coach Ollie to deceive or otherwise circumvent NCAA
legislation during. To the extent that any violation occurred, the violation would be "de minimus" under NCAA
rules. See NCAA Bylaw 13.1.2.4.

Allegation Re:

Athletic Director Benedict alleges that Coach Ollie violated his duty to abide by NCAA rules when he
shot baskets with then-prospective student athlete in September 2017 while - was on his
official visit. As Athletic Director Benedict notes, Coach Ollie was truthful in response to compliance when
questioned about the incident and he noted that the interaction was quite limited ~e . Athletic Director
Benedict takes umbrage with Coach Ollie's characterization of the interaction with- and quotes a story
from the Hartford Courant which detailed - commitment to UConn. However, Athletic Director
Benedict sloppily appropriates the media reporter's depiction (Dom Amore) of the interaction and passes the
quote off as being from - himself when - is quoted as saying no such thing. While any violation of
NCAA rules is undesirable, Ath letic Director Benedict laments the "seriousness" of the violation. However,
violations of Bylaw 13.11.1 and Bylaw 13.11.2.1 are considered "de minimus" violations by the NCAA and
therefore institutional violations that do not affect the eligibility of prospective student athletes or currently
enrolled student athletes. In fact, violations of Bylaw 13.11.2.1 are not uncommon in Division I as there are at
least 33 different Level Ill/Secondary violations reported in the RSRO system by Division I member schools.
Moreover, while Benedict claims to have "concluded" that Coach Ollie's actions with- violated both of
the foregoing bylaws, the NCAA enforcement staff is the final arbiter of whether an alleged conduct
constitutes a Level Ill violation of legislation. See NCAA Bylaw 19.11.2 (stating that after reviewing relevant
information and consulting with the institution and involved individual, the enforcement staff shall conclude
whether one of more Level Ill violations occurred) (emphasis supplied).

As is the case in most self-reports, the final determination of whether a violation occurred is highly
fact-sensitive and is ultimately concluded by the Enforcement Staff and not the institution based on various

7
factors, including case precedent, official and staff interpretations, and educational columns binding on the
membership. While the institution has an obligation to reports instances of noncompliance to the NCAA
under Bylaw 19.2.2, its role is not exclusive or conclusive when it comes to determining whether an
institutional staff member committed a Level Ill violation of NCAA legislation. As noted above, the NCAA
Enforcement Staff is empowered by the membership to conclude those violations. And in those instances
when the Enforcement Staff's discretion is not exclusive, it is the Comm ittee on Infractions who is empowered
to conclude Level Ill violations and prescribe appropriate penalties for violations of the Association's
legislation, not the institution. See generally NCAA Bylaw 19.11.

Instead, Athletic Director Benedict hastily concluded that Coach Ollie committed a "de minimus"
violation in an attempt to rationalize his false narrative that Coach Ollie somehow failed in his duty to abide by
NCAA rules and should be terminated "for cause" under the CBA. Even if Coach Ollie conceded that his
actions constituted a violation, and he does not concede that, the violation would be at worst a Level Ill
violation which the rules define as an inadvertent violation that is isolated or limited in nature and provides no
more than a minimal recruiting advantage. Athletic Director Benedict attempts to argue that Coach Ollie's
actions wit~were even more "compounded" because ~erbally committed immediately after his
visit. By inference, Athletic Director Benedict concludes that Coach Ollie's shooting baskets with- was
the reason fo~ verbal commitment. However, any such conclusion is belied by the fact that _
himself stated that his commitment was due to his "trust" in Coach Ollie and the "pro-style offense" that he
ran at UConn, and that Coach Ollie "understands what it takes to get to the next level," no doubt an allusion to
Coach Ollie's NBA playing credentials at the point guard posit ion. See Hartford Courant article by Dom Amore.
No reasonable independent fact-finder could conclude that Coach Ollie's inadvertent and isolated actions with
~ould constitute "serious misconduct" under the CBA warranting termination for "just cause."

Derrek Hamilton

Allegation: Student-athletes trained with Hamilton after-hours on campus

Athletic Director Benedict relies on Travis lllian' s and Glen Miller's bold and false allegations that 1)
Derrek Hamilton attended practices in-season and pulled athletes out of practice to train (pp. 517-20), and 2)
players trained with Hamilton after hours {pp. 1060, 1072-73}. Miller's and lllian's testimonies are nothing
more than conclusory allegations that are directly contradicted by every other coach, staff member, and
student's testimony.

Miller alleges that "typically, if we were in an official practice, I want to say, you know, he would grab a
few guys out for practice for some extra work" {p. 518). The investigators, after hearing this testimony of a
possible violation, surprisingly did not follow up for more detail (pp. 518-520). Miller goes on to confidently
testify that "Preseason, postseason, pretty sure he had some sessions with the guys then too" (p. 518). Illian
alleged that "quite a few" athletes trained with Hamilton during the school year, during the day, and at night
(p. 1073).

However, consistent with the rest of Miller's testimony, his testimony on this subject lacks details.
Miller testified that he didn't know the duration of the training sessions and didn't know who attended (p.
518). He didn't know if coaches or staff members were present (p. 519). Testifying further, Miller guesses as
to sessions occurring in the off-season or preseason (p. 520). No additional details were given. Shockingly,
even though multiple other interviewees remembered Hamilton permissibly training specific players in the

8
offseason, after they had exhausted their eligibility, Miller cannot even recite such corroborated details (See
pp. 23, 216, 281-85, 706, 839).

Every other interviewee contradicts Miller's and lllian's allegations. Coach Ricky Moore testified that he
doesn't remember Hamilton interacting with students and never saw Hamilton on the court with a student
athlete (p. 594). Dwayne Killings testified that he never saw Hamilton on campus (pp. 215-16). Dave Sevush
testified that he doesn't remember Hamilton training any players and only remembered seeing him in the
offseason (p. 921). La rib Omara-Otunnu only remembered Hamilton training players after the season was over
as they were preparing for their professional careers (pp. 839-41). One student-athlete testified that he never
heard any players say they had any practices with Hamilton (p. 142). Kevin Freeman testified that he only saw
Hamilton training former-athletes in the summer when they had exhausted their eligibility and testified that
he never saw Hamilton during the school year (pp. 1211-16). - estified that he saw Hamilton train two
players, once, in the summer (pp. 281-287). - further testified that he didn't remember any of his
teammates talking about training with Hamilton (p. 284).

Miller and Illian are the only two individuals upon whom Athletic Director Benedict relies to support his
allegation that Mr. Hamilton trained student-athletes in the middle of the season . Conveniently, these two
individuals were either terminated or non-renewed, and are, objectively, the two most biased witnesses
Athletic Director Benedict encountered during the course of this investigation. To rely on the testimony of
objectively biased witnesses when such testimony is outweighed by the testimony of numerous consistent and
disinterested witnesses displays the disingenuous and controverted nature of Athletic Director Benedict's
actions.

Allegation: Coach Ollie was aware of three then-student athletes traveling to Atlanta In Summer
2016 to train with Mr. Hamilton

Athletic Director Benedict relies on assumptions and unreliable testimony for his allegation that Coach
Ollie possessed prior knowledge of the impermissible training that took place between three then-student
athletes and Derrek Hamilton in Atlanta in the summer of 2016.

Athletic Director Benedict cites the testimony of or the contention that -

- -ather, contacted Coach Ollie prior to the Atlanta trip (p 91). Notwithstanding the fact that
lied under oath not once, but twice, during the course of this investigation, Athletic Director Benedict then
takes - assumption and attempts to turn it into fact:

RR: Okay. Do you know if [your father] reached out to your coaches or anything
or what did your dad do?

11 1mean, I would assume - I'm not 100 percent sure, but if I had to guess,
yeah .

(p. 91.) Nowhere in - testimony does he state, as fact, that Coach Ollie was aware of the trip to Atlanta.
Instead, Athletic Director Benedict relies on a guess, as his evidence for Coach Ollie's knowledge.

- father, testified that he called Coach Ollie and Coach Ollie informed Mr. -
that, while training with an outside trainer was permissible, the University could not have any financial role in

9
 1
the arrangement. (pp. 1096-97). paid for his son's plane ticket to Atlanta and gave his son money
to pay for a hotel room in Atlanta, to pay for food, and to pay for transportation around Atlanta (p. 1096).
lso allegedly contacted Hamilton and inquired about how to pay for the training (p. 1097).
Hamilton allegedly advised Mr .• that payment cou ld be sorted out later (p. 1097).

From the testimony of~nd his father, Athletic Director Benedict somehow jumps to the
conclusion that Coach Ollie was aware that the players were training in Atlanta without compensating Mr.
Hamilton for his services. However, it is logically impossible for Coach Ollie to have known that the players
would be train ing with Mr. Hamilton without compensating him for his services. intended for his
son to pay for food, lodging, and transportation out of the money he provided (p . 1096). - tried to
do everything to make su re nothing was done wrong (p. 1097). allegedly, reached out to Coach
Ollie before the trip to make sure it was permissible for his son to train with Mr. Hamilton (p. 1096).
Surprisingly, the investigators never asked Coach Ollie if he had a conversation with about .
- training in Atlanta with Mr. Hamilton (pp. 704-08).

To be clear, had and the other players paid Mr. Hamilton for his training services and
food, lodging, and transportation, this would be a moot issue. It is only because , and possibly the
other players, decided upon arrival in Atlanta to pocket the money provided by their parents and freely accept
things of value from Mr. Hamilton . 82 . "I had money to pay for [a hotel]" (p. 82). "Either my mom or my
dad [booked my flight]" (p. 81). estified to investi e original plan, when he had
called Coach Ollie, was for o rent a hotel room (p . 1096). also testified that the original plan
was for him to rent a hotel room and pay for his own food and transportation (p. 82). believed
his son traveled around Atlanta via Uber and only played pick-up (p. 1096). had no knowledge-
when he allegedly called Coach Ollie-that~ould ~in one-on-one work with Hamilton. (p.
1096). Instead, Coach Ollie is being disciplined because - decided upon arrival in Atlanta, "I mean,
I' d rather not pay for it and keep the money. If somebody was cool with letting me stay at their house, I'd
rather do that" (p. 82).

Allegation: Coach Ollie Put Student-Athletes in Touch with Derrek Hamilton

Athletic Director Benedicts conclu des, without citing a single line of testimony from the more than
1,200 pages of transcripts, that Coach Ollie put student athletes into touch with Derrek Hamilton. Once again,
Athletic Director Benedict jumps to an incorrect conclusion.

Two of the athletes that trained with Mr. Hamilton were interviewed by investigators. Both students
testified that they initiated contact with Mr. Hamilton (pp. 88, 104, 305, 306, 311, 312). Both athletes also
testified that they did not tell any coaches about their plans to travel to Atlanta (pp. 92, 311).

Impermissible Meals

Athletic Director Benedict laments the seriousness of the possibility that, in one or two isolated
instances, a recruit may have eaten University-provided food on an unofficial visit. Of course, any possible
violation is unwanted; however, Athletic Director Benedict's inflation of alleged minor, isolated incidents
cannot serve as justification for termination "for cause".

Athletic Director Benedict alleges that Coach Ollie failed to monitor comp liance by pointing to alleged
evidence that on two occasions, over Coach Ollie's six years of employment, a recruit at a University-provided

1
- refused to permit the University or the NCAA to digitally record his interview.

10
 food eve nt on an unofficial visit. Contrary to Athletic Director Benedict's conclusory allegations, this testimony
does not support a finding that Coach Oll ie failed to monitor compliance amo ng his staff. Multiple members of
Coach Ollie's staff were aware of the restrictions surrounding unofficial visits and they actively worked to
com ply with the req uirements. Coach Moore testified that he actively attempted to keep recruits away from
University-provided food on unofficial visits (p. 630). Coach Kil lings also t estified that he and other coaches
were vigilant in monitoring impermissible meals on unofficial visits and instructed recruits that if they went up
to the catered meal, they could not partake (pp. 250-51). Dave Sevush t estified that he remembered coaches
discussing the rules surrounding the issue and how much a recruit would have to pay if they, for some reason,
ate University-provided food on an unofficial visit (p. 943). Clearly, staff members were aware of the
restrictions and actively worked to ensure compliance.

Although Athletic Director Benedict points to the famously inconsistent testimony of Glen Miller as
support for this baseless allegation that Coach Ollie failed to monit or compliance, the fact that no other coach
can rem ember these in stances that Glen Miller cites is evid ence that such incidents were rare and isolated.
Coach Moore testified that he never saw a recruit eating the post -practice meal with the team (p. 630). Coach
Killings testified that he never saw a recru it eating the post-practice meal on an unofficial visit (p. 251).

Athletic Director Benedict's unfounded allegations demonstrate the zeal with which he is determined
to smea r Coach Ollie's name and drag UConn into a forum where a neutral arbitrator will have no choice but
to side with Coach Ollie after reviewi ng t he overwhelming evidence in his favor.

Danny Griffin

Allegation : Danny Griffin Engaged in Impermissible Phone Contact with Recruits and/or Their
Families

Athletic Director Benedict twists the testimony of two interviewees to make it appear as if Danny
Griffin engaged in impermissible contact with recruits and their families. Athletic Director Benedict, once
again, st ret ches the truth to fit his narrative.

Athletic Director Benedict's allegation that Danny Griffin had "some level of telephone contact" with
mischaracterizes the evidence. Mr. Griffin, who had a prior relationship with rom a
mutual Los Angeles connection, allegedly enga ed in extremely limited contact with none of
which re lated to- ecruitment. Initially, llegedly contacted Mr. Griffin for recruiting help during
2015 (p. 650). Mr. Griffin did not engage with (p. 650). Mr. Griffin, who other interviewees repeatedly
characterized as a friend ly, social individual, kept in touch with friends and acquaintances in Los Angeles,
which included (p. 651).

In the few alleged contacts between Mr. Griffin and none of the contacts addressed
- recruitment (pp. 652, 653, 667, 668.). In fact, some of the contacts were allegedly initiated by
and were intimately personal in nature (p. 653). When- discovered Mr. Griffin's sister passed,
reached out to express his condolences and the two cont inued to engage in innocuous co nversations (pp. 653,
668). To say that Mr. Griffin attempted to recruit s a gross mischaracterization of the t estimony
provided to investigators.

Athletic Director Benedict once again stretches the truth and alleges that Danny Griffin en
impermissible t elephone conversations with father. Mr. estimony,
however, revealed that he allegedly initiated contact with Danny Griffin (p. 997). Mr. ontacted Danny
Griffin t o express his son's interest in the University of Connect icut. (p. 997). Aside from that contact, the two

11
never engaged in any recruiting-related communications. Afte visited UConn, Mr.
and Mr. Griffin occasionally engaged in friendly conversations, many of which were initiated by Mr.
(pp. 997-1004). What Athletic Director Benedict conveniently omits from his allegation is that Mr and
Mr. Griffin share a common history; both having gro~se to each other in Los Angeles. (pp. 1003.) If
Athletic Director Benedict is to place his faith in Mr. - testimony, then he must place his faith in all of
Mr.- estimony, including Mr. - testimony that the two never talked about ~r UConn
(p. 1000).

Dave Sevush

Allegation: Coach Ollie instructed players to go see Mr. Sevush to "work on plays"

Athletic Director Benedict grossly mischaracterizes Coach Ollie's testimony and twists it to fit his false
narrative.

The clear and consistent testimony of Coach Ollie directly refutes Athletic Director Benedict's false
allegations that Coach Ollie lied about Dave Sevush's role within the program. Coach Ollie testified that Dave
was the "video and recruiting coordinator" (p. 687). Dave was also responsible for, among other things, the
computer software Fast Draw, certain recruiting assistance, and "setting up Hudl accounts for.our guys so they
can see plays." (p. 687). Dave was responsible for,from a logistical standpoint, assisti ng student-athletes with
logging into Hudl and accessing the plays (pp. 693-694). Coach Ollie also consistently testified that he
instructed athletes to see the coaches if they needed to discuss the plays (pp. 690, 694).

Athletic Director Benedict, ignoring the bulk of Coach Ollie's testimony about this issue, cherry-picks
and distorts Coach Ollie's answer to a poorly constructed question from the investigators:

RR: Was there ever a time, did Dave have to meet with student athletes to go
over anything; do you recall that?

KO: No.

RR: Okay. Do you ever remember anything at practice, did any coach every say if
you need to go over this play a little bit more or you need to learn it a little bit
more, just go see Dave; he can talk about it with you?

KO: No.

(pp. 687-88). Notably, the investigator in the above-cited exchange never asked Coach Ollie if he instructed
players to go see Dave for logistical assistance in accessing Hudl so that they could review the plays. The
logical conclusion from Coach Ollie's testimony is not that he in structed players to go review plays with Dave,
but that, at most, he possibly instructed players to see Dave for logistical assistance in accessing the team's
library of film.

Additionally, Athletic Director Benedict conveniently ignores the test imony of several coaches and
players, including Dave Sevush himself, which tracks Coach Ollie's consistent testimony on this topic. Dave
Sevush, who investigators openly remarked had an exce llent memory (p. 865), testified that he never met with
student athletes to go over film (pp. 884-85). Dave Sevush testified that Coach Ollie would tell the team, "go
to Dave and make sure you have the film" (p. 885). estified that Dave's job was to help players
get the plays and distributed t he plays through Hudl (p. 17). ~urther testified that he never heard any

12
coach say, "Go meet with Dave to go over stuff' (p. 18). estified that coaches instructed players
to see Dave about accessing the playbook and the Hudl account and interpreted the instructions as
meaning, "[Dave will] pull up the video for you from practice or a game, and you just watch it" (p. 273). La rib
Omara-Otunnu testified that athletes would go to Dave to get the clips or for him to upload them for the
athletes (p. 838). Coach Ricky Moore testified that he never heard Coach Ollie instruct athletes to go over film
with Dave (p. 560). Kevin Freeman testified that he never heard Coach Ollie, or any other coach, instruct
athletes to go see Dave to work on plays (p. 1203).

Athletic Director Benedict relies, in part, on the inconsistent testimony of Miller that Coach Ollie
instructed players to see Dave Sevush to go over plays (pp. 492-93). 2 Within the same exchange, however,
Miller testified that he never sat in on one of the alleged film sessions between Dave and an athlete and had
no clue what occurred in the alleged film sessions (pp. 498-500). Three different athletes testified, however,
that they don't know of a single athlete that, in fact, went to Dave to watch film. (See pp. 17-19;
p. 272; pp . 122.) Similarly, Dave Sevush testified that he never met with a
student athlete to go over film (pp. 884-85).

Allegation: Dave Sevush gave on-court instruction

Athletic Director Benedict falsely alleges that Dave Sevush gave on-court instruction to a student-
athlete. The testimony upon which he relies is inconsistent and contradicted by the overwhelming weight of
the testimony of other interviewees.

Athletic Director Benedict relies on a passage from testimony in which- alleges

that Dave Sevush provided on-court instruction for- during freshman year at UConn (pp. 115-
16).

Several issues stand out with regards to - testimony. First, - a practice player at the time,
alleges that Dave Sevush provided on-court instruction in Gampel (p. 115). However, as you know, the Werth
Center opened in 2014, when - was a practice player. As such, this alleged instruction would not have
taken place in Gampel.

Additionally- estimony is outweighed by the overwhelming evidence that Sevush did not
provide on-court instruction. testified that he never saw players go to Dave with basketball
questions (pp. 17-18). similarly testified that he never saw players go to Dave (p. 272). Ms.
Omara-Otunnu testified that she never saw Sevush on the court (p. 839). Coach Moore testified that he never
saw Dave give any sort of instruction, adding that Sevush never played basketball (pp. 563, 566). Coach Killings
testified that he never saw Dave on the court with athletes (p. 183).

Perhaps most notable is the fact that investigators, and counsel for UConn, did not ask Mr. Sevush
whether he ever provided on-court instruction (pp. 884-894). Instead, Athletic Director Benedict relies on the
unsupported allegation of a single exchange in an athlete's interview. Like many of Athletic Director Benedict's
unsupported and false allegations, this allegation is overwhelmingly contradicted by the testimony from
numerous other interviewees.

"Alleged Comparators:" the CBA, and Connecticut's Fair Employment Practice Act

2
Director Benedicts mistakenly cites Glen Miller's testimony as falling on O llie Adm in pp. 01 14-0 I 18 or 0805-0806, neither of which
are the correct citations for Miller's testimony concerning this subj ect.

13
 In response to the UConn-AAUP's prior letter regarding the allegations against Coach Ollie's dated,
April 18, 2018, counsel for the University raised the point of "Alleged Comparators," which is a term that is
commonly associated with disparate treatment under state and federal laws dealing with unfair employment
practices. Athletic Director Benedict takes issue with the fact that UConn-AAUP and Coach Ollie have raised
the treatment afforded to Coach Calhoun as an appropriate comparator for the disparate treatment he is
receiving from the University. It would be a mistake to think that Coach Ollie and UConn-AAUP raised the
issue of Coach Calhoun as a comparator to analogize the severity of major violations committed under Coach
Calhoun to the relatively minor violations alleged against Coach Ollie because there is no comparison when it
comes to the scope and severity of violations. In 2011, the NCAA Committee on Infractions ("COi" ) concluded
there were several major violations committed under Coach Calhoun's leadership of UConn' s men's basketball
program. Those violations included: impermissible inducements by a representative; impermissible
inducements by a basketball staff member; unethical conduct by the same basketball staff member for
providing false and misleading information to the NCAA; impermissible entertainment by the men's basketball
coaching staff, including Coach Calhoun; failure to monitor by the University; and a failure to promote an
atmosphere of compliance by Coach Calhoun. Thus, the purpose of introducing an appropriate comparator is
to point out the University's unfair and disparate treatment of similarly situated employees under the CBA, as
well as state and federal law.

Athletic Director Benedict disagrees that the two University head coaches are similarly situated. First,
he asserts that Coach Calhoun's major violations occurred under his predecessor and that he expects strict
compliance. However, the law relating to unfair employment practices has established that disparate
treatment is not limited to the "same decision-makers" where- as here-there is knowledge of institutional
practices with regard to similarly situated employees. See Seay v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 339 F.3d 454,
480 (6th Cir. 2003) (concluding that the plaintiff and another employee who the defendant treated more
favorably were similarly situated, in part, based on evidence that the plaintiff's supervisor attended a meeting
regarding the plaintiff at which "[p]ast discipline for similar misuses was discussed." ). More to the point, the
fact that Coach Calhoun's major violations occurred under a predecessor is completely irrelevant for purposes
of the CBA and in the NCAA infractions process. Athletic Director Benedict's statement about expectation of
strict compliance implied that his predecessor did not require such compliance. Such a claim is not persuasive
as it is the institution itself that matters here, not its agents who may come and go over time. It is the
institution that is a party to the CBA, and therefore bound by its provisions, not any particular athletic director.
It is the institution that is a member institution of the NCAA and the institution and its athletics staff members
are bound by the Association's rules. It is the institution that is seeking to terminate Coach Ollie and so any
relevant conduct by UConn in past situations of "serious misconduct," that is any past practice in the labor
context, is entirely probative of whether it is treating similarly situated employees similarly and fairly. See
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 40-43 (2d Cir. 2000) (employees can be similarly situated even if they
hold different positions and have engaged in different conduct, provided that their conduct is of "comparable
seriousness"). Accord, United Techs. Corp./Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Div. v. Comm 'n on Human Rights &
Opportunities, 72 Conn. App. 212, 226 (2002). While employees must be "similarly situated in all material
respects," their circumstances need not be identical to the plaintiff. Id. Plaintiffs are only required to prove "a
situation sufficiently similar to their own to support at least a minimal inference that the difference of
treatment may be attributable to discrimination." Id. (quoting McGuinness v. Lincoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49, 54 (2d
Cir. 2001).

Comparison to Coach Calhoun is not the only relevant touchstone to determine the legitimacy of
Athletic Director Benedict's newly found desire to rigorously enforce NCAA rules and regu lations when doing

14
so is consistent with his goals for a particular program at a particular point in time. 3 If Athletic Director
Benedict requires strict compliance with rules and is seeking to terminate Coach Ollie because of alleged
noncompliance that does not amount to "serious noncompliance" or the presence of reported secondary
violations as set forth in his recommendation, then the institution's treatment of Coach Ollie is patently unfair.
On this point, not only is Coach Calhoun an appropriate comparator but so are Coach Auriemma of women's
basketball program and the past four head football coaches at UConn, two other high profile sports. If strict
compliance is to mean anything, it must mean that no one ever commits a violation on Athletic Director
Benedict's watch. When the number of self-reported secondary violations in each sport is compared these
coaches, Coach Ollie stacks up favorably with his colleagues. Coach Ollie had 12 secondary violations self-
reported from his program during his six-year tenure, one of which was reported by his staff. Only four of
Coach Ollie's secondary violations involved recruiting. Coach Auriemma had 11 self-reported secondary
violations during that same period and only two of which were reported by Coach Auriemma's staff. Eight of
Coach Auriemma's secondary violations involved Bylaw 13 recruiting violations. During the same period, and
across several football coaches, the University self-reported 17 secondary violations in football, only three of
which were reported by the football staff. Nine of the football program's violations were for Bylaw 13
recruiting violations. Several of these violations occurred after March 2016, in other words, on his watch.
Thus, there have been dozens of instances of noncompliance in the University's athletics program under
Athletic Director Benedict, 35 to be exact, yet the on ly head coach he is seeking to terminate is Coach Ollie.
This is patently unfair.

Athletic Director Benedict also asserts that Coach Ollie and Coach Calhoun are "very differently
situated ." On the contrary, Coaches Ollie and Calhoun are similarly situated but are being treated very
differently. Coach Ollie and Coach Calhoun are both national championship winning coaches. Coach Ollie won
a national championship in just his second season as a college head coach. In contrast, Coach Calhoun did not
win his first NCAA national championship until his 13th season. Athletic Director Benedict states that Calhoun
was a long term employee who had coached at the University for "many years without issue." If Athletic
Director Bened ict does not consider having the Division I Committee on Infractions conclude major violations
against Coach Calhoun and the University' s men's basketball program "without issue," then he cannot credibly
assert that alleged secondary violations involving Coach Ollie in the NCAA's current investigation is "serious
misconduct" worthy of termination for "just cause" . For Athletic Director Benedict to assert that Coach
Calhoun ran his program without issue is worthy of ridicule and scorn, unless he suffers from selective
amnesia. Coach Calhoun was penalized by the COi with a suspension from all coaching duties during the first
three conference games of the 2011-12 season and the institution was placed on three years of probation for,
in part, failing to monitor his program. That is the definition of an " issue." Athletic Director Benedict
cavalierly states that Coach Ollie had no such "established history" of running a program for many years
"without issue." Actually, Coach Ollie does have an established history of running a compliant program for the
last six years without any Level I or Level II violations concluded against him or his program. That is a fact.

The NCAA's investigation is ongoing and the Enforcement Staff has not issued a notice of allegations,
necessarily implicating Level I or Level II violations. Neither the COi nor the Enforcement Staff have concluded
any violations against Coach Ollie yet the institution is seeking to fire him "for cause." This treatment is even
starker when compared to Coach Calhoun. Not only did UConn continue to employ Coach Calhoun after he
brought disrepute and embarrassment to the university t hrough his concluded violations, but after his

3
On this point it will also be relevant to examine Athletic Director Benedict's own past history for tolerance of practices that
potentially violated the NCAA rules and regulations, including his decision to employ persons whose conduct has been the focus of
NCAA enforcement activities.

15
retirement the University subsequently rehired, and continues to employ, Coach Calhoun as a Special
Assistant to the Athletic Director. During the 2011 infractions case, the University supported and stuck by
Coach Calhoun and disagreed with the Enforcement Staff's allegation of a Bylaw 11 Head Coach Responsibility
violation. Yet here, the University unhitches itself from Coach Ollie and seeks to serve as judge, jury, and
executioner, alleging and concluding itself, that Coach Ollie has violated Bylaw 11. The University offers no
good reason for this glaringly disparate treatment of two accomplished and decorated head coaches, one a
Hall of Fame veteran coach with three national titles, and the other, a young, accomplished and respected
national champion and University alum. This is no way for the University to treat one of its own. Athletic
Director Benedict's actions are unwarranted, inequitable, and disgraceful.

Ironically, while Athletic Director Benedict boldly claims that Coach Calhoun's program had no issues,
Athletic Director Benedict then admits that when Coach Ollie took over, the program had "challenges." Those
challenges were manifold and manifest. They included taking over a program in 2012-13 that had been placed
on probation by the COi's 2011 Infractions Decision and had received recruiting restrictions, scholarship
reductions, and a postseason ban due to poor academic performance under Coach Calhoun. Yet, in spite of
these challenges, Coach Ollie persevered and led the team to a 20-win season in his first year as head coach,
and a winning record in the rugged Big East Conference. In his second season, he won the national
championship while the program was just ending its three-year infractions probation, defeating perennial
powers Florida and Kentucky in the Final Four. Coach Ollie took over a program in tumultuous circumstances
and performed honorably and magnificently by winning a fourth national championship in men's basketball
and resurrecting the program's dismal academic performance out of the doldrums and into the elite among
Division I men's basketball teams by earning perfect APR scores in three of his past four seasons as the
University's head coach . Athletic Director Benedict had nothing but glowing praise for Coach Oll ie just last
year for his efforts at turning around the program and building a championship culture on and off the field.
See " UConn Has Transformed Men's Basketball Academics from Dismal to Outstanding" at
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-uconn-men-notebook-apr-scores-0510-20170508-story.html .

Additionally, you also showered Coach Ollie with praise for how he took a program in crisis
academically to among the elite in college basketball on and off the court by winning a national championship
and achieving a perfect APR score in the same year. In fact, you were quoted in the NCAA Magazine as saying,
"Coach Ollie cares about the whole student," and that he indeed "drove a lot of this process and implemented
a lot more structural plans that we may have." See " UConn Wins on Court, in Classroom," at
http:ljwww.ncaa.o rg/champion/uconn-wins-court-classroom .

Coach Ollie has done nothing to deserve this disrespectful, classless, and unfair treatment. Athletic
Director Benedict rather flippantly, and erroneously, stated that Coach Ollie's program was in the midst of
"another" NCAA investigation under his "supervision ." That is a material misstatement of fact as Coach Ollie's
program has never been under NCAA investigation. This is the first time that Coach Ollie's program has been
investigated by the NCAA. Athletic Director Benedict also takes substantial liberties characterizing Coach Ollie
as seemingly not "providing complete and truthful information to the NCAA" in the ongoing investigation,
essentially concluding that Coach Ollie has engaged in unethical conduct. No such conclusion has been alleged
by the Enforcement Staff or concluded by the COi, the only body empowered to make such a determination
under NCAA legislation. Athletic Director Benedict's attacks on Coach Ollie's credibility and truthfulness are
reckless at best and potentially defamatory at worst. At this point, Athletic Director Benedict's conclusory
statements about Coach Ollie's truthfulness are backed only by conflicting, equivocal, and self-interested
statements from Glenn Miller and Travis Illian. Their mere speculation about Coach Ollie's mindset will not be
persuasive to a panel of the COi.

16
 As an independent and impartial fact finder, the NCAA's COi must base its decision on "information
presented to it that it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent
persons rely on in the conduct of serious affairs.'' See NCAA Bylaw 19.7.8.3. In fact, the COi refused to
conclude an unethical conduct violation against the former assistant coach in the 2011 UConn Infractions
Decision because it found that the Enforcement Staff appeared to base its allegation on speculation.
Moreover, the COi found that some of the specific questions asked of the former assistant coach by the
Enforcement Staff were poorly constructed as compound questions and elicited the allegedly false
statements. The COi declined to find an unethical conduct violation under those circumstances and it likely
could do the same in this case, if it were to be presented with such an allegation against Coach Ollie. See
University of Connecticut Public Infractions Report, February 22, 2011 at pp. 21-22.

In sum, Coach Ollie and Coach Calhoun are indeed similarly situated but are clearly receiving disparate
treatment under the CBA for inexplicable and meritless reasons. In spite of the gravity of the official NCAA
findings, the administration took no disciplinary action against Coach Calhoun, and in fact currently employs
Coach Calhoun in an advisory capacity. In disturbing contrast, Coach Ollie was summarily terminated by Mr.
Benedict-with no prior warning-even before the NCAA had issued a single allegation against Coach Ollie. In
fact, as of the date of this this letter, the NCAA has not even issued a Notice of Allegations against Coach Ollie.
Even if allegations were to be issued by the NCAA, Coach Ollie would be afforded a full opportunity to respond
and present additional evidence, as a result of which the charges could very well be entirely dismissed. In
short, whereas the Athletic Director Benedict invidiously "jumped the gun" with Coach Ollie-during an
ongoing and incomplete investigation by the NCAA-the University provided unwavering support and legal
guidance to Coach Calhoun during the entire NCAA proceedings. And even after Coach Calhoun was found to
have committed the most serious level of infractions by the NCAA, the University took no disciplinary action
whatsoever. Notwithstanding Athletic Director Benedict's recommendation, it is you who now stands to take
ownership of the decision whether to terminate Coach Ollie's employment. While you commenced your
office on the heels of the NCAA investigation and findings against Coach Calhoun, the University's handling of
the matter was known by you, and Coach Calhoun's NCAA sanctions were carried out during your tenure. The
University's handling of Coach Calhoun's NCAA violations is institutional practice that should not-and
cannot-be ignored, even if Coach Calhoun had a longer history at the University before his violations were
discovered. At this juncture, you serve as the decision-maker whose decision will demonstrate whether the
University of Connecticut, when faced with clear evidence of disparate treatment, either stands up for values
of fair, equitable, and impartial treatment or shows contempt for those very principles.

Conclusion

We are confident that Coach Ollie will prevail in his quest to be exonerated of the false claim that "just
cause" exists to terminate his employment under the CBA. Coach Ollie and UConn-AAUP urge you to weigh
the significant decision you are called upon to make pursuant to the process set forth in the CBA against the
important and substantial points of law and fact raised by this appeal. In doing so, consider that the law
clearly favors the interpretation that the CBA controls in any case where there is a conflict with an individual
contract where the latter could be interpreted to provide less protection than the CBA. There can be no
serious dispute that an arbitrator will require the University to demonstrate "serious misconduct" has
occurred to justify a termination for "just cause" based on a single incident that amounts to "serious
noncompliance" with NCAA rules and regulation as dictated by the terms of the CBA. Yet, Athletic Director
Benedict has provided you with a recommendation that is built on a flimsy foundation of facts derived mainly
from former, disgruntled employees of the University whose inconsistent stories are based on conclusory
allegations that amount to nothing more than de minimus violation, at best. In the haste to remove Coach

17
Ollie so that he can be replaced by Coach Hurley as the new Head Coach of the men's basketball, Athletic
Director Benedict has run roughshod over Coach Ollie's contractual and statutory rights to be free of disparate
treatment. The pre-determined nature of the decision to remove Coach Ollie at all costs has been firmly
established by the words and actions of counsel for the University and Athletic Director Benedict. Part of the
motivation behind the decision and recommendation made by Athletic Director Bened ict could not be more
clearly established - a desire to renege on the Employment Agreement and the payment required to be rid of
Coach Ollie in favor of Coach Hurley. It is quite telling that the disparate treatment displayed in the decision to
fire Coach Ollie no matter what the cost raises the specter of unfair employment practices that institutions
such as the University of Connecticut commonly reject, but implicitly engage in to the detriment of its
reputation . Although we are dealing with Athletic Director Benedict's recommendation to terminate Coach
Ollie today, ultimately you will have to own this decision along with its unsupported claim to "serious
misconduct" amounting to "just cause" in testimony you will be called upon to provide at deposition and at
trial. The decision to terminate Coach Ollie based on what can only be described as possible de minimus
infractions, especially when compared to the major violations and the suspension doled out to Coach Calhoun
by the NCAA, who was and continues to be supported by the University, will be your decision to justify as a
decision that is legitimate and worthy of belief.

Thus, you are now placed in the unfortunate position of having to add your signature and to declare
your support for this miscarriage of justice. It remains the hope of Coach Ollie and UConn-AAUP that you will
be persuaded to stand against this unfair result and find a better way to part way with the Coach that you
hired and once publicly praised.

Very truly -,cours,

~u.·""-,,,._.,.-I
Michael Bail y
Executive Director UConn-AAUP

cc: Kevin J. Ollie, Head Coach

Thomas Kruger, Esq., Chair of the Board of Trustees
Rachel Rubin, Chief of Staff to the President
Nicole Gelston, Interim General Counsel

18