Northwestern Fires Fitzgerald Over Hazing But Don’t Expect Closure
In the wake of a damning report accusing the Northwestern football team of hazing players through coerced sexual acts, the university on Monday fired head coach Pat Fitzgerald effective immediately.
In a statement obtained by Sportico and distributed to the university, Northwestern president Michael Schill said “the decision comes after a difficult and complex evaluation” regarding Fitzgerald’s “failure to know and prevent significant hazing in the football program.”
More from Sportico.com
Bob Huggins Has Hired Three Lawyers. Who Should WVU Believe?
Northwestern Hazing Scandal Could Elicit Lawsuits, Fitzgerald's Ouster
Schill said that 11 current or former players confirmed that hazing had been a part of the football program for “many years.” The hazing included “forced participation, nudity and sexualized acts of a degrading nature” and was “clearly not a secret within the program.”
Fitzgerald, 48, has been the Wildcats’ coach since 2006. He reportedly earns a salary of $5.75 million annually on a contract that runs through 2030.
Last Friday, Fitzgerald began to serve a two-week suspension imposed by Schill. The suspension reflected findings by ArentFox Schiff, a law firm hired by the school to investigate the allegations. The firm found that evidence, including statements by witnesses, corroborated that a freshman was victimized by “running,” a hazing ritual where upperclassmen wear masks and “dry-hump” a victimized player in front of his teammates in a dark locker room.
ArentFox concluded that while there was not “sufficient evidence” to believe Fitzgerald knew about “specific misconduct,” he had multiple opportunities to learn what was occurring and act—and that he failed to do so.
In a statement, Fitzgerald said he didn’t know about the hazing.
The Daily Northwestern offered a more critical assessment of Fitzgerald, reporting that (according to an accuser), Fitzgerald would clap his hands during practice to possibly signal which players made enough mistakes to warrant hazing. In addition to the hazing reporting, the Daily Northwestern published a story in which former football players accuse the program of racism.
There are several ways Fitzgerald’s firing carries legal significance.
The first is if Fitzgerald was fired with cause or without cause.
A firing with cause would mean the school contends Fitzgerald violated a provision in his employment contract obligating him to act in a certain way and that the failure to meet it would justify a with cause firing.
For instance, Fitzgerald may have been bound to reasonably administer the university’s conduct policies, including its anti-hazing policies. His possible failure could supply a justifiable reason to fire him with cause.
Usually, a firing with cause relieves the school of the obligation to pay out the coach on their contract. In contrast, a firing without cause typically contemplates the coach will be paid a sizable percentage of the remainder of their contract.
If Fitzgerald was fired with cause, he could sue Northwestern for breach of contract. He would argue he met the terms of the contract and, by firing him with cause, the school breached its obligation to him.
The capacity of Fitzgerald to sue would depend on whether the contract contains a dispute resolution clause. One might require him to turn to mediation, arbitration or both before he can turn to a court.
But if he does at some point sue, Fitzgerald would do so with risk. Whatever is found through pretrial discovery could be made public. Fitzgerald would have to answer invasive questions under oath and share sensitive emails and texts. If he has reason to worry about these types of disclosures, he might think twice about suing.
Conversely, if Northwestern athletic and academic administrators are worried about what might be revealed about them through a lawsuit, they’d have greater incentive to settle a potential lawsuit with Fitzgerald through a termination agreement.
A termination agreement would contain a nondisclosure/non-disparagement clause that prevents either the school or Fitzgerald from revealing damaging information about the other, and it would contractually bar each from suing the other. In exchange Fitzgerald would be paid. Fitzgerald is young enough to land another coaching job, so leaving on those types of terms might be particularly desirable.
Still, a fundamental problem for both Fitzgerald and Northwestern is that they don’t control the universe of this scandal.
As explained in a Sportico legal story, the fallout could be far-reaching. Federal and state law enforcement could pursue criminal charges. Accusers could sue the school and Fitzgerald. The Justice Department, the Department of Education and accompanying federal and state agencies could pursue regulatory actions. The NCAA and Big Ten could investigate and punish. Any and all of those could lead to damaging disclosures about coaches and university officials, and pit them against each other.
There’s also reason to believe that the scandal will only widen in the days ahead, as happened with the racism allegations. Don’t be surprised if this is the start of a pattern—especially if university officials worry about being blamed. They could leak information to redirect blame to others.
Finally, the hazing scandal may have reignited the movement to classify the school’s football players as employees. CBS Sports reported Monday that Michael Hsu, head of the College Basketball Players Association, filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against Northwestern for classifying players as “student-athletes” rather than employees.
Buckle up.
