Former Pitt head coach Michael Haywood was fired after 17 days of employment.
For Pitt fans, coach Michael Haywood was a short lived memory as he was fired by Pitt Executive Vice Chancellor Jerome Cochran 17 days into his supposed five-year tenure. Haywood returns to Pittsburgh with a complaint in-hand suing the University if Pittsburgh for $3.75 million dollars for breach of contract.
On September 19, 2011, Haywood filed his civil suit in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania (Western District). In his nine page complaint, he claims, among other things, that Pitt breached its contract when the school wrongfully terminated him after he was arrested for a domestic issue in South Bend, Indiana.
Back in December 2010, Haywood inked a five-year contract that would have grossed him roughly $1.5 million a year, and per the terms of the contract, if the school wanted to ever cancel the contract it would owe Haywood $750,0000 per remaining year. After Haywood was terminated, he did not see any of that money owed to him.
Haywood came to the Steel City to replace Dave Wannstedt with hopes of taking the team to the next level. But shortly after his December 15, 2010 hire, he was arrested for a domestic dispute at the hands of his son’s mother. Upon learning of the arrest, Pitt terminated Haywood for “cause” and hired Todd Graham as a replacement.
Haywood alleges that he was never actually contacted by Cochran and only learned of his firing from his agent Albert Elias. Pitt ultimately sent him a letter of termination but did not afford Haywood the opportunity to be heard.
In his complaint, Haywood explains that the domestic dispute was a result of him trying to protect the welfare of his child from his son’s mother Beth Marriot. Haywood came to Ms. Marriot’s home only to find an “erratic” and “irrational” Ms. Marriot who was visibly influenced by alcohol. Fearing for his son’s safety, Haywood attempted to take his son away which angered Ms. Marriot causing a physical altercation and ultimately led to the police arriving at the scene.
After the disturbance settled, Ms. Marriot did not want Haywood charged or arrested. However, as a precautionary measure, the police arrested Haywood. He was released the next day. Upon learning of this news, Pitt fired Haywood without any due process, not even giving Haywood an opportunity to comment on the events that took place. Haywood felt the school betrayed him and breached its contractual duty. His suit is seeking pecuniary losses, mental anguish, and exemplary damages. Pitt has yet to comment on the filing of Haywood’s suit.
In unrelated news, Haywood’s attorneys are off to a poor start with Judge Joy Conti. Currently, there is a pending show cause order questioning why his attorneys failed to properly follow the court’s policies and procedures when filing a complaint.
