University Business - April 2012 - (Page 23)

registration fee; the manner in which the players financed participation in the class was suspect; and at least two of the players enrolled in the class had another class scheduled at the identical time. According to Hedden, the History of Spain course complied with neither NCAA regulations nor Kean University policy. Hedden immediately notified the NCAA as well as Kean’s president, in compliance, Hedden argued, with Kean’s obligations as a NCAA-member institution. The NCAA confirmed there was likely a problem with the course and that potential violations had occurred. In addition, Hedden allegedly discovered a member of the women’s basketball team had fallen below the required 2.0 GPA necessary for competition. He alleges the student athlete’s grade in “Introduction to Women’s Studies” was inexplicably changed from an “F” to an “incomplete,” which raised the player’s GPA to above the NCAA-required 2.0 necessary for competition. According to Hedden, the grade change was conducted unilaterally by Kean’s vice president of academic affairs without contacting the course instructor or going through the grade grievance process. Because of the grade change, the student athlete was eligible to play in Kean’s next game, where she led the team in minutes and scored 13 points. Once he discovered the grade change, Hedden has said, the student athlete’s grade was returned to an “F” and the player was academically ineligible for the next two games. The player was reinstated the following week, when her History of Spain grade was changed by the instructor from C+ to B+. The grade change allegedly was authorized by Kean’s vice president of operations over Hedden’s objection. Hedden voiced his concerns regarding potential rule violations and academic fraud to Kean administrators. Hedden claims he was told that his allegations were “malicious and absurd” and, if they were true, the violations were Hedden’s “fault” because he did not prevent them from universitybusiness.com occurring. Complying with his and Kean’s NCAA obligations, Hedden claimed, he submitted an “Academic Integrity Inquiry Follow-Up” report to the NCAA outlining what he believed to be academic fraud and other violations. The NCAA subsequently commenced an investigation into the allegations raised by Hedden and conducted on-campus interviews in April 2011. Approximately a week later, on May 2, 2011, Kean University fired Hedden because he failed to “fulfill his professional responsibilities as athletic director and as the key university official responsible for overseeing compliance.” The case of Glenn Hedden at Kean University should serve as a warning for all intercollegiate athletic programs. On March 1, 2012, Kean University appeared before the Committee on Infractions. It was good news for Hedden. Together with his lawyer, he was able to attend the hearing and observe Kean’s defense against the NCAA allegations and learn first-hand how the university intends to defend against his whistleblower complaint. While those proceedings are not part of the public record, Hedden will learn, for example, whether Kean takes the position that his termination was done as part of Kean’s self-imposed penalties or whether he was terminated in the ordinary course as part of his annual review process. Hedden’s whistleblower case is scheduled for mediation in the coming weeks and discovery is well underway. Lessons Learned The case of Glenn Hedden should serve as a warning for all intercollegiate athletic programs governed by both the NCAA and institutional guidelines. Concerns over possible NCAA rules violations and noncompliance with institutional policy must be taken seriously and addressed swiftly. Officials should review their policies and practices to ensure that employees are encouraged to report wrongdoing, and that reports are responded to in a prompt and non-retaliatory manner. Nearly all states have some type of whistleblower protection similar to Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Moreover, if the university receives federal funding that can be connected to the alleged misconduct, a current or former employee could possibly fashion a federal whistleblower claim, or as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently found, a claim under the Racketeering Influence Corruptions Act. DeGuelle v. Camilli, 664 F.3d 192 (7th Cir. 2011). Institutional officials should also be conducting broad ethics and antiretaliation training campuswide, as well as within the athletic department, to educate the staff on how to handle internal complaints by putative whistleblowers. Hedden’s case presents a “perfect storm” scenario—blending an NCAA investigation, the threat of potential sanctions, and a civil whistleblower lawsuit all within the same fact pattern. Institutions elsewhere don’t want to find themselves in the same precarious position as Kean University, responding to the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations and appearing before the Committee on Infractions while simultaneously defending a whistleblower complaint. Appearing before the Committee of Infractions is difficult enough for an NCAA member institution. Having to respond fully and completely without undermining its defense in an ongoing civil whistleblower case may be impossible. Scott James Preston is a shareholder in the Indianapolis office of Littler Mendelson P.C., the nation’s largest employment and labor law firm representing management. He has extensive experience representing employers, including universities, on a variety of workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance with federal, state and local laws. Mr. Preston can be reached at (317) 287-3534 or spreston@littler.com. April 2012 | 23 http://www.universitybusiness.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of University Business - April 2012

University Business - April 2012
Editor’s Note
College Index
Ad Index
Behind the News
Financial Aid
Viewpoint
Independent Outlook
Models of Efficiency
Guns on Campus
Campus Finance
Internet Technology
End Note
Contents

University Business - April 2012