Football: Former coach Haywood seeks investigation into termination

Former Pitt football coach Michael Haywood sent a letter to Pitt putting the University on… Updated: 9:40 p.m.

Former Pitt football coach Michael Haywood sent a letter to Pitt putting the University on notice and requesting a sit down regarding his termination from the position in January, Haywood’s attorney Tony Buzbee said this morning.

Buzbee said that he also filed paperwork with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to requesting an investigation regarding his termination from Pitt.

Pitt Athletics spokesman E.J. Borghetti said “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. The University subsequently provided a full and public explanation of that decision, eliminating the need to discuss this subject any further.”

Shannon Powers, the Director of Communications for the PHRC, said that the office received a faxed complaint questionnaire from Haywood this morning.

The complaint is considered filed as of today’s date and the commission isn’t certain of Haywood’s exact allegations as of yet.

The next step is for the staff to draft a complaint for his signature and once that is signed, the investigation can begin.

Buzbee said he hopes that the PHRC will investigate the matter.

“It’s certainly something that needs investigation,” he said. “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.”

Pitt hired former Tulsa head coach Todd Graham to the same position on Jan. 10.

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

Last night, a news release from Power MediaWorks, LLC, a public relations firm representing The Buzbee Law Firm, said 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.

Haywood had a guaranteed contract for $1.5 million a year, Buzbee said. If the University fires him without cause, Busbee said, the contract entitled Haywood to $750,000 per year until he finds a job.

Even with termination without cause, Buzbee said Haywood still had guarantees in his contract that that Pitt has not fulfilled. He said the University hasn’t lived up to their obligations.

One of those obligations is Haywood’s $300,000 contract buyout with Miami (Ohio) University. Buzbee said that the contract buyout is one of Haywood’s top priorities.

The other priority is gaining a sit down with Pitt officials.

“We want to sit down with them and let them know what happened, that reading in the newspaper or watching something on TV about an allegation is probably not a sufficient reason to terminate a state employee,” Buzbee said.

Buzbee said that neither Haywood nor any person speaking on his behalf has been able to speak with Pitt Athletic Director Steve Pederson or Pitt’s vice chancellor in order to explain “what had actually happened.”

“We even made available the alleged victim to them so they could talk to her and they didn’t want to talk to either the coach or the alleged,” he said.

He added that the termination was completed in a summary fashion. Buzbee said Haywood wants to talk with Pitt officials to see if the University will handle the buyout or admit that it acted hastily in firing him.

“[We want them to say] that we looked at what the ticker said on ESPN instead of calling the coach that we had enough faith and confidence in in the first place,” Buzbee said.

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…”

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. Very often a settlement is reached 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 they can file a case in the court of common pleas.