HookedonGriz said:
I think the biggest issue for me is what/how it was stated. One day, the soccer coach has resigned and Kent gives the old "we both discussed it and it was a mutual decision". The next day (literally) the Missoulian reports the guy was fired for texting with escort services in Vegas and for some players coming forward with alleged inappropriate behavior allegations and Kent comes out and says "yes we fired him and I was trying to respect him as an individual and person".
Why not just come out and tell the truth from the jump. Are there legal concerns with what Kent or UM says of the situation? Retaliation or wrongful firing stuff? Maybe PR can shed some light because that's the part that rubbed me wrong.
At the end of the day he was investigated and fired and for that I'm happy with the handling.
Hooked, the short answer to your questions is "yes".
Back in my corporate Human Resource executive days, we called these firings "RETPOO's". Whenever we would be in a position to fire someone (generally a mid-manager level or above), we would give them a chance to resign instead, and then we would immediately put out a tersely worded email that they chose to "Resign To Pursue Other Opportunities". Everyone knew what happened, of course, any time a retpoo email went out. They knew it wasn't the employee's decision.
The reason we did that was because any time you fire someone, even if you have just cause, the employee has rights to take action. For example, they can file for unemployment. In this case, UM would deny that claim as they would feel strongly their firing was for just cause. But the coach could appeal that decision, which leads to a hearing and possibly discovery, all of which would be available to the public (press) via a FOIA filing. It's highly doubtful the coach would be successful, but there are certainly reasons (including costs, expenses) why it's best to avoid this.
Likewise, the coach could file suit, again requiring discovery, interrogatories, etc. Again, it's difficult for me to believe he'd prevail, but any action like this keeps the issue in the news cycle and runs up defense costs quickly. In addition, you run the risk of negative publicity. Let's say during discovery that it was determined that others on campus occasionally used their phones for inappropriate/non-state purposes. Now, I doubt that there are too many of them out there ordering up some hookers, but they may be having an affair and texting on that phone to avoid detection from their spouse. Or whatever. Why expose UM to that kind of negative publicity?
Get the offender to resign, carefully craft the wording of his resignation notice in a way that leaves no doubt that he was forced to do so, and you alleviate and prevent all of those potential problems while still letting people know you took appropriate action.
