N.B. volleyball coach fired after he told veterans they would have to try out again wins wrongful dismissal suit
A University of New Brunswick women’s volleyball coach who told five of his veteran players that they would have to try out again if they wanted to play the next season has won $50,920.98 in a wrongful dismissal suit against the school.
UNB terminated Richard Schick in October 2023 for what it considered just cause, pointing to his aggressive style and the way he swore at his players. He took his case for wrongful dismissal to the province’s Court of King’s Bench.
“UNB was faced with a series of harassment complaints against Mr. Schick. It retained an outside expert to investigate the complaints. It met with Mr. Schick, the complainants and took time to consider the matter, before deciding to terminate his employment,” Justice E. Thomas Christie wrote in a recent decision.
“In my view, while UNB took the steps necessary to properly investigate the complaints and consider the outcome of the investigation, it owed Mr. Schick an opportunity to reform his conduct with the knowledge that he was being disciplined.”
Not all violations of an institution’s harassment policy require termination, said the judge.
“In this case, the investigative finding was that Mr. Schick’s behaviour violated the policy in certain ways, but that some of the complaints were unfounded,” Christie said in his decision dated Sept. 19.
“In addition, (the outside investigator hired by UNB, lawyer Kelly Van Buskirk) found that Mr. Schick had a degree of insight into his issues and the willingness to address them. These are factors which, in my view, support the application of progressive discipline.”
UNB hired Schick in May 2021 on a three-year fixed term contract.
The court heard problems came to a head at the end of the 2022-2023 season when Schick told five veterans they would have to try out again to make the UNB Reds.
Within a week, the five players and a team therapist filed harassment complaints against Schick with UNB’s Human Rights & Positive Environment Office.
Van Buskirk “noted the coincidence that the originating complaints were filed shortly after certain of the complainants had been told their spot on the team was not secure for the upcoming season,” said the judge’s decision.
“The implication raised by Mr. Schick was that the complainants were motivated (at least in part) by the news that they were not secure on the team. With that said, the coincidence (or any mixed motive) does not make ‘right’, conduct that was ‘wrong.'”
Van Buskirk’s investigation report “details the specifics of a significant number of examples of alleged harassing behaviour by Mr. Schick,” Christie said.
“While keeping count of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ findings is not a useful way to evaluate the conduct under review, it is worth noting that of the thirty incidents identified in the complaints reviewed by Dr. Van Buskirk, nine were considered by him to be ‘founded’, and twenty-one considered to be ‘unfounded,'” said the judge.
“Of the nine considered as ‘founded’, most were substantially based on the aggressive use of profanity toward his players and the impact that left on them.”
The court heard that after Schick coached the 2021-2022 season, player evaluations raised concerns about his behaviour.
“He has a one-size fits all approach to motivation and communication with athletes,” said one player. “For some the harsher motivation tactics works however, for some, the communication style significantly impacts performance.”
That answer “is reflective of the concerns of some players that existed then and continued to evolve,” said the judge.
An affidavit from team member Paige Lehto said that during the two seasons Schick coached her, she was “consistently subjected to bullying and harassment.”
That led her to seek out counselling, she said. “I was (experiencing) extreme sadness and loss of motivation that was impacting my performance as an athlete, as well as negatively impacting other areas of my life.”
The team’s athletic therapist, Andrea Gabourie, said that over the course of the 2021-2022 season, she witnessed Schick “shouting at the athletes using profanities during both practices and games.”
Gabourie said she “observed noticeable decline in the athletes’ demeanour and wellbeing both on and off the court as a result of how they were being treated by” Schick.
She “also noted how Mr. Schick would belittle her and detailed the impact it had on her personally,” said the decision.
“Other players provided affidavits that reflected similar concerns. Those players were Emma Burns, Madeline Mills, Lorren Benko and Heather Benko. All recounted certain examples of Mr. Schick’s behaviour that led them to feel undermined as players and the impact his behaviour had on them off the court as well. In general terms, the concerns were around Mr. Schick’s use of profanity, belittling of athletes in front of others, and an overly aggressive approach to practice sessions and during games.”
Schick’s assistant coach, Kim Colpitts, told the court that she “experienced consistent disrespect and belittling” from Schick during the two seasons she worked with him.
Schick, a professional volleyball coach since 2000, said he reviewed player evaluations for the 2021-2022 season with John Richard, UNB’s athletic director.
“Mr. Schick deposes that, despite the comments noted, there were no issues of consequence raised by Mr. Richard,” said the decision.
“Nevertheless, upon personal reflection of the athlete evaluations, Mr. Schick deposed that: ‘While I had made some adjustments to my coaching style and communication style throughout the season, upon reviewing the survey results, I reflected that my coaching and communication style could benefit from some additional adjustments. I was receptive to this feedback and modified my coaching and communication style based on the feedback that I received.’”
The same thing happened after the next season, said the decision. “Mr. Schick deposes that the athletic director expressed no concerns. In fact, Mr. Schick, being aware that there were certain negative comments in the year-end survey, suggested that Mr. Richard meet with certain players but Mr. Richard, apparently, saw no need to do so.”
Schick “was aware of the concerns of certain of the team members and had met with some of them individually and, on occasion, as a group. On such occasions it appears that Mr. Schick would recognize the issues raised and indicate his desire to work toward resolving the concerns,” said the decision.
The court heard Schick behaved aggressively and swore “excessively during practices and competitions. This behavior was particularly evident at the outset of the 2021- 2022 season,” said the decision.
The head coach “was advised during and after the 2021-2022 preseason tournament that his language and behavior was inappropriate, and he acknowledged the same,” said the decision, which notes that “according to several witness accounts, the respondent has improved his behavior in this regard.”
The decision points to an incident where Schick slammed “a ball into the floor in an aggressive manner while shouting loudly.”
He put a player in a “timeout” in the fall of 2022 “by sending her to a corner of the gym,” said the decision, which notes Schick “acknowledges that this was inappropriate.”
The judge points out that “beginning in the first part of the 2021-2022 season,” Schick sought “guidance, input and assistance from UNB athletics regarding his relationship with his team members, and he appears to have followed that guidance when it was provided.”
Schick “was self-reflective regarding his conduct at various times and often accepted feedback from players and team staff when it was provided,” Christie said. “He has also acknowledged and apologized for his conduct at certain points during his tenure.”
UNB fired Schick for violating its harassment policy.
“Considering the nature and extent of the misconduct, the surrounding circumstances, and the need for an appropriate but proportionate response, Mr. Schick argued that UNB’s response of dismissal was too severe.”
According to UNB, the head coach’s behaviour “represented violations of the essential terms and conditions of his employment and was inconsistent with Mr. Schick’s fundamental duties. Mr. Schick’s behaviour created a poisoned work environment, so to speak, which could not be remedied under his continued leadership.”
UNB argued “progressive discipline was not an option … given the impact Mr. Schick’s conduct had on the team. The players were in a vulnerable position.”
But Canadian law on wrongful dismissal is clear, said the judge. “For an employer to satisfy its burden of proving that it has dismissed an employee for cause it must demonstrate that it has employed a system of progressive discipline leading up to the dismissal unless a single incident is so egregious that it warrants summary dismissal.”
While, in this case, “discipline was certainly warranted (and that can run from verbal warnings to written warnings, through to suspensions, and ultimately termination), in my view, the grounds asserted fall short of justifying summary dismissal,” Christie said. “Mr. Schick was entitled to some degree of progressive discipline.”
It goes without question, said the judge, that one of UNB’s “expectations would be that a coach should never harass a player under their charge. The player is entitled to no less. It appears that certain players on the women’s volleyball team did not respond well to Mr. Schick’s coaching style. Perhaps others did. But for those who found his style to be excessively abrasive and harassing, and suffered emotionally because of it, the scars will remain.”
Schick is entitled to his remaining pay for the three-year term because UNB didn’t impose “any progressive discipline when it was warranted in the present circumstances,” said Christie, who also awarded the coach $3,500 in legal costs.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Comments
Be the first to comment