Football: Haywood advances inquiry

ormer Pitt football coach Michael Haywood’s attorney Tony Buzbee met with Pitt officials on… Former Pitt football coach Michael Haywood’s attorney Tony Buzbee met with Pitt officials on Monday, Buzbee said Tuesday. At the same time, Haywood has filed paperwork with two agencies that investigate employment practices.

Buzbee, who said he was waiting to see if anything would come of the meeting, wouldn’t comment on what was said, and Pitt officials also declined comment.

Last month, Buzbee said that Haywood sent a letter to Pitt on June 29 putting the University on notice and also filed paperwork with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting an investigation of his January termination as Pitt’s head coach.

On Tuesday, Buzbee said the primary issue in the investigation is Haywood’s termination without due process, which is a 14th Amendment right.

Shannon Powers, the director of communications for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said on Tuesday that the PHRC received a faxed questionnaire from Haywood on June 29.

Powers said the information in the questionnaire will be drafted into a legal complaint and then returned for the person’s signature. Powers said that the PHRC hasn’t received Haywood’s signature yet and so no official investigation has started.

Buzbee said he is working on the paperwork and still plans on moving forward with the investigation. He said Haywood wasn’t available for comment.

“We’re going to let the state entity do its job,” Buzbee said.

Powers said that as far as she is aware, the basic allegation is that Haywood was discharged based on his race.

Pitt Athletics spokesman E.J. Borghetti declined to comment past his initial statement from June 29.

“When the decision was made to terminate Michael Haywood in January, it was done so only after careful and thorough consideration of all relevant circumstances,” Borghetti said that day. “The University subsequently provided a full and public explanation of that decision, eliminating the need to discuss this subject any further.”

Buzbee said the most important issue is the lack of due process, but did mention the fact that Haywood’s replacement, Todd Graham, is white.

Pitt hired former Tulsa head coach Graham as head coach of the Panthers on Jan. 10.

“It’s certainly something that needs investigation,” Buzbee said in June. “Understand that Coach Haywood was replaced very quickly by a coach that’s paid $500,000 more per year. The way this has all happened raised a lot of questions.”

On Dec. 31, 2010, less than two weeks after he was hired, police arrested Haywood in South Bend, Ind., on charges of domestic abuse against the mother of his child. Pitt fired Haywood on Jan. 1.

A news release from Power MediaWorks, LLC, a public relations firm representing The Buzbee Law Firm, said on June 28 that soon after the domestic abuse allegation, the mother of Haywood’s child filed papers saying that Haywood didn’t pose a danger to her or their then 21-month-old child.

The news release states that “the submitted paperwork also raised questions about the accuracy of the police report.”

At a court hearing on Feb. 11, Haywood entered a court diversion program in Indiana which requires 60 hours of community service and a psychological evaluation. If he completes the deal, the charges will be dismissed in one year.

Court documents state that during the hearing Haywood admitted to touching the mother of his child in a “rude, insolent or angry manner” and said she suffered an injury after falling.

In June, Buzbee said that Haywood had a guaranteed contract with Pitt for $1.5 million per year, and if the University fired him without cause, the contract entitled Haywood to $750,000 per year until he finds a new job.

He added that Pitt didn’t live up to guarantees in Haywood’s contract, such as his $300,000 contract buyout with Miami University (Ohio).

Powers said that once the complaint is filed and signed, the opposing party — in this case, Pitt’s legal department — is served by the PHRC. Once served, the party is required to answer within 30 days, although it’s possible to receive an extension.

If the party doesn’t answer, it risks being held liable.

The PHRC’s website states that it “enforces commonwealth laws that prohibit discrimination: the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which encompasses employment, housing, commercial property, education and public accommodations…”The EEOC’s website states that it “is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant for an employee because of a person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information…”

Representatives for the EEOC couldn’t be reached for comment.

The websites didn’t specifically say that the commissions deal with due process issues, but they cover issues that arise during employment as well as the hiring and termination of employees.

The PHRC has the power to subpoena records that support or dispute a claim if a party refuses to give up records voluntarily.

In the Haywood case, Powers said Pitt would put forth any documentation the University has to support its story.

Next, Powers said the two parties would meet at a fact-finding conference. Often the parties reach a settlement at this point. She added that there would be a continued effort to settle throughout the investigation.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the PHRC would reach one of two findings: probable cause or no probable cause.

If there is probable cause of discrimination, Powers said there would be one last effort to settle and then the case would proceed to a public hearing. If there is no probable cause, the filing party is notified and has 10 days to put forth further information.

The new information is reviewed in a preliminary hearing and if no cause is found, the party is informed of his right to file the case in court.

Under state law, the party must allow PHRC one year to investigate the claim. If the case is still open after one year, the party is notified so that he can file a case in the court of common pleas.