O’Day has a one-year contract ending June 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. That means UM is legally obligated to pay him for three more months, totaling $31,056.
Pflugrad’s contract expires at the end of the calendar year on Dec. 31. Nine months remain on his contract, which totals $116,250.
In all, UM will owe at least $147,306 for the recent high-profile firings.
Last Thursday, UM released a statement saying UM President Royce Engstrom chose “not to renew the contracts” of O’Day and Pflugrad. The university gave no reason, which has caused frustration among students, faculty and alumni. In fact, the university is saying nothing about the firings.
However, it’s important to note – from a legal standpoint – that the two men were not fired. UM chose not to renew their contracts and relieved them from duties immediately. To the average person, that’s fired. But the distinction is important.
“Oftentimes, many, many times, that’s the most prudent thing for the employer to do,” said Karl Englund, a Missoula attorney who specializes in labor law. “If you’re fired, it’s for cause. Then you’re going to have a fight. Termination for cause can get litigious awfully quick. You can be in a dispute with a person for years and years and years, and they’re tremendously expensive.”
Since UM is obligated to pay Pflugrad through the year, if the university chooses to hire a new coach before the start of the fall football season, it will be paying two head football coaches – which is one of the highest-paid positions on campus, with a base salary of $155,000.
When the men are officially out of their contracts is negotiable. The parties need to decide whether it’s when the money is paid, presumably in a lump sum, or on the end date stipulated in the contract, Englund said.
There are some benefits to remaining on the payroll through the contract expiration date. The person would still be eligible for health and retirement benefits, for example, Englund said.
Pflugrad’s contract is more straightforward than O’Day’s. Pflugrad’s contract automatically expires unless extended prior to Dec. 31.
However, according to O’Day’s contract, he is entitled to five months’ written notice prior to UM not renewing his contract.
It’s probable that UM didn’t provide that much notice.
So one of several scenarios could occur, Englund said.
Either UM could pay O’Day for the remaining three months he’s owed under his contract. Or O’Day could request payment for five months from the time that he was released from his duties, which was last Thursday. Or, because the contract is an annual one, his attorney could argue that O’Day is entitled to another full year of salary, which is $124,225.
“Both have done the prudent thing in that they’ve retained experienced counsel,” Englund said. “Neither has burned any bridges by anything they’ve said, so they’ll debate these sides.”
The university is keeping mum on the subject. UM chief legal counsel David Aronofsky said Wednesday the university does not comment on personnel matters.
Despite the fact that this frustrates many people, Englund says it’s in the university’s best interest not to say anything. O’Day and Pflugrad have a right to privacy under the U.S. Constitution, he said.
“It’s a huge can of worms for them to say anything,” he said. “The smart thing for them to do, not only for the university but everyone involved, is not to be talking about this in public.”
Englund added, “People are curious, and I understand all of that, but the Constitution is very clear. I don’t think people’s interest in what happened to a coach rises to the level of a ‘compelling interest.’ ”
