Holly Warlick, Brian Pensky recommended firing of strength coach Heather Mason

Pensky also critical of how players trained

Heather Mason

Heather Mason

University of Tennessee women’s basketball coach Holly Warlick and Lady Vols soccer coach Brian Pensky wrote letters recommending the firing of associate strength and conditioning coach Heather Mason.

Both coaches cited inadequate job performance, according to documents in Mason’s 90-page personnel file obtained Thursday through a public records request by the News Sentinel.

Mason, 39, is a co-plaintiff along with her immediate superior, associate athletics director for sports medicine Jenny Moshak, and former associate director for women’s strength and conditioning Collin Schlosser, in a U.S. District Court lawsuit. They accuse UT of discrimination and retaliation in a complaint filed on Oct. 11, 2012.

In a letter dated April 25, 2013, from UT senior associate athletics director Mike Ward to Mason, he told her “continued employment is no longer in the best interest of the University of Tennessee Athletics Department and your employment will be terminated effective June 3, 2013 due to unsatisfactory job performance.”

The letter adds, “coaches of the teams with which you work have concluded that their teams need a different strength and conditioning coach.”

An undated, unsigned and unaddressed letter from Warlick states she “lost confidence in Heather’s ability to deliver training techniques or motivate players” and claims “there has been no measurable or visual progression in quickness, strength and especially the areas or speed and agility.”

Warlick also states her players were not in shape following pre-season workouts with Mason.

In an April 24 letter from Pensky to Ward, the UT soccer coach mentions six bullet-pointed reasons for a change at strength and conditioning coach. Among them are “a lack of understanding of what high-level soccer players need in order to maximize their speed, power and explosiveness,” a “lack of foresight and planning,” and insufficient workout routines

and availability to athletes.

Warlick and Pensky, both in their first seasons as UT head coaches, also cited a lack of communication skills from Mason as a reason for dismissal.

According to a Feb. 25 letter from senior associate athletic director Donna Thomas, who is referred to as the “chief operating officer for the Lady Vols,” in her UT bio, to fellow senior associate athletic director David Blackburn, Warlick is said to have voiced concerns over strength and conditioning before the 2012-13 season concluded.

In 2010, Mason, Moshak and Schlosser filed a complaint with the university claiming members of the UT men’s athletic department received more favorable wages than women’s athletic department personnel for comparable jobs.

When the original complaint was filed in 2010, Moshak’s base salary was $90,993 and Mason earned $80,000. Since then, each received raises, earning base salaries of $102,500, according to the News Sentinel’s database of UT athletic department salaries. Schlosser was among 15 UT athletic department employees terminated on April 16, 2012.

Mason was hired as UT’s head women’s strength and conditioning coach in 2003 at a starting salary of $55,008.

According to personnel files, Mason received a strong ranking in her formal 2011 performance review filed on March 13, 2012. She scored a 21 out of a possible 25 points, rating her as “fully achieving and occasionally exceeding expectations.”

Mason received similar reviews over her 10 years in the UT athletic department. All reviews were conducted by Moshak. Mason was promoted to assistant athletics director for strength and conditioning in August 2008.

In Mason’s 2010 performance review, Moshak wrote, “She has solidified the Lady Vol Strength and Conditioning program as one of the top in the nation.”

No formal 2012 performance review results were included in the personnel files. According to UT spokesperson Margie Nichols it was determined no formal performance review for the 2012 fiscal year was necessary after the letters were submitted by Pensky and Warlick.

Nicholls said Mason will not receive a separation package as part of her termination.

Brendan F. Quinn covers Tennessee men’s basketball. Follow him at Twitter.com/BFQuinn

Get Copyright Permissions © 2013, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2013 govolsxtra.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 126

FearlessFreep writes:

Coaches change, and so do their strength requirements. How many strength coaches has football been through? This is no different. Sorry, can't play the gender card here.

madrigal writes:

This changes the story a little. But I hope they leave Jenny Moshak alone. She is the best head trainer anywhere in women's college sports.

underthehill writes:

just my opinion..How can anyone be this stupid..Mason's attorneys have to love this..do you expect to convince a jury or judge this letter had nothing to do with the lawsuit..the evidence I see in this article indicates to me it does..

tomatosoup writes:

Discrimination....seriously? Looking at Mason's picture above, she appears to be white to me? Is she claiming reverse discrimation? I can't and don't want to uderstadn this at all!! Our Lady Vols did great this year, in fact, much better than I was originally thinking and NEXT YEAR.....that could be the year I've been waiting for a while (a trip back to the National Championship)! Go figures, this lady wants to ruin the program and cause aingst I tell you...nothing but aingst! Go Vols Mrs. Mason, thanks for your time! Go Vooooools!

SummittsCourt writes:

Sometimes people get lazy on their jobs, especially when they think they are untouchable and then complain when they are called on the carpet for not performing up to standards.

cobragolfer writes:

Let Warlick and Pensky do the strength coaching then!!!

brian.mcculloch2008#1417262 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Snapshot writes:

Kind of throws a monkey wrench into jeffy an toddy's conspiracy theory about the lawsuits, doesn't it? I'm sure they will try to spin it their usual manner. You know, blame Hart, blame Dooley, blame the delusional, sycophant, know nothing Big Orange fans. After all, that's what they do best.

aspenvol2 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Biggie writes:

in response to cobragolfer:

Let Warlick and Pensky do the strength coaching then!!!

Idiot

Ironcity writes:

This has to hurt all the Dave Hart bashers here. They should have picked up on it when Coach Warwick mentioned that we have to get into better shape ext year. That was a direct shot at the S&C team.

KCHS63 writes:

"An undated, unsigned, and unaddressed letter from Warlick......"

Uh, okay.......really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

volnsc writes:

in response to KCHS63:

"An undated, unsigned, and unaddressed letter from Warlick......"

Uh, okay.......really?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

My thoughts exactly. Now I don't have a clue what is really going on here, but on the surface I think UT may lose their butts on this. This lady had superior reviews for years and suddenly, without any bad reviews by her superiors, she is fired. And they intend to support this with "an undated, unsigned, and unadressed letter from Warlick." Who at this level writes such letters? Just saying this episode might not pass the sniff test.

BigBadVol writes:

LOL! All the experts on here! I want to see how everyone that's blaming Dave Hart is going to spin this development.

snowpeapod#263184 writes:

Like all the posters on this story,myself included, we probably don't have a clue as to what goes on inside the athletic department inner workings. I hate to see anyone get fired but this story, just like a gall stone, will pass one way of the other.

voloffaith writes:

in response to volnsc:

My thoughts exactly. Now I don't have a clue what is really going on here, but on the surface I think UT may lose their butts on this. This lady had superior reviews for years and suddenly, without any bad reviews by her superiors, she is fired. And they intend to support this with "an undated, unsigned, and unadressed letter from Warlick." Who at this level writes such letters? Just saying this episode might not pass the sniff test.

From another VOL in sc...Ms. Moshak was doing the reviews......the ranks have circled in tight...

CroKev writes:

When is your other personality, "Grove," going to respond?

Crickets...

underthehill writes:

in response to volnsc:

My thoughts exactly. Now I don't have a clue what is really going on here, but on the surface I think UT may lose their butts on this. This lady had superior reviews for years and suddenly, without any bad reviews by her superiors, she is fired. And they intend to support this with "an undated, unsigned, and unadressed letter from Warlick." Who at this level writes such letters? Just saying this episode might not pass the sniff test.

I think I remember being taught in school about something called ...the law of reasoning...don't seem to apply here..but usually does in court...

WaltGoVoIs writes:

This type of letter from these coaches would -have- to part of the university's legal strategy.

The question would be - where was the progressive discipline? Was Mason warned before that her results were lacking?

One company I worked at you had to document attempts to help the failing employee:

1. Oral warning (but done in writing)

2. Written warning

3.Personal improvement plan with -quantifiable- goals. Was the person in the office for X number of hours a week? Did they produce Y number of reports per hour?

If it's not on paper it didn't happen.

I would think this would have little effect on her law suit. It's Post Facto. It's just UT touching a base.

Walt

UT '81

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to Ironcity:

This has to hurt all the Dave Hart bashers here. They should have picked up on it when Coach Warwick mentioned that we have to get into better shape ext year. That was a direct shot at the S&C team.

It's Post Facto. It doesn't mean squat. If anything it shows "Your Cheating' Hart in a bad light. If he wanted to get rid of this gal punitively, he needed to have attempts at performance counseling on paper before hand.

One of the crappy things we had to do in the Marine Corps was make page 11 entries on Marines who were doing a great job, but that we wanted to get a little more time in grade before you recommended them for corporal or sergeant. These Marines had to sign a statement in their record books, "Not recommended for promotion at this time due to blah, blah, blah."

We'd just tell them - "Don't worry. It's just BS required by HQMC. You're right on track."

It prevented some from saying, "Well, no one told me I wasn't doing a great job."

Again - this shows the administration in a bad light if anything.

Walt

UT '81

underthehill writes:

in response to WaltGoVoIs:

This type of letter from these coaches would -have- to part of the university's legal strategy.

The question would be - where was the progressive discipline? Was Mason warned before that her results were lacking?

One company I worked at you had to document attempts to help the failing employee:

1. Oral warning (but done in writing)

2. Written warning

3.Personal improvement plan with -quantifiable- goals. Was the person in the office for X number of hours a week? Did they produce Y number of reports per hour?

If it's not on paper it didn't happen.

I would think this would have little effect on her law suit. It's Post Facto. It's just UT touching a base.

Walt

UT '81

Interesting info Walt..but I think this could indeed have an effect on the lawsuit..I think her attorneys will make an issue on the credibility ..or lack thereof ..of Dave Hart..and I think anything pertaining to this issue will be used by them in court and under oath..I think they may be allowed to address the issues he had at Fla State as part of their argument..we'll see..

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to underthehill:

Interesting info Walt..but I think this could indeed have an effect on the lawsuit..I think her attorneys will make an issue on the credibility ..or lack thereof ..of Dave Hart..and I think anything pertaining to this issue will be used by them in court and under oath..I think they may be allowed to address the issues he had at Fla State as part of their argument..we'll see..

Not having any disciplinary paperwork on her -before- telling her she is terminated - that's unprofessional. Even with the lowest employees you know when you want then to go, and they know you want them to go. You have to get your ducks in a row before hand.

Now when you have these executive type cases where everyone has a lawyer, it can be different. I don't think what Hart did at FSU can be broached unless it shows a pattern of harassment. Didn't he do some obvious harassment there too?

Of course what his tenure at FSU showed conclusively is that he can't manage such a big organization competently.

Which is why he -never- ever - should have been given the reins of the UTAD.

Walt

UT '81

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to Johnny_Aint_No_Del_Shofner:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

This is the sort of thing that could start the wheels rolling on someone showing Hart the door too. His actions have been wonderfully maladroit.

Walt

UT '81

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to Johnny_Aint_No_Del_Shofner:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

I said that too - If Dooley wins 8 games I am gone. I never sweated it.

Walt

UT '81

GoVols025 writes:

in response to WaltGoVoIs:

This type of letter from these coaches would -have- to part of the university's legal strategy.

The question would be - where was the progressive discipline? Was Mason warned before that her results were lacking?

One company I worked at you had to document attempts to help the failing employee:

1. Oral warning (but done in writing)

2. Written warning

3.Personal improvement plan with -quantifiable- goals. Was the person in the office for X number of hours a week? Did they produce Y number of reports per hour?

If it's not on paper it didn't happen.

I would think this would have little effect on her law suit. It's Post Facto. It's just UT touching a base.

Walt

UT '81

Utter nonsense. These folks are probably "At Will" employees and they agreed to that when they accepted the job. Possibly a classification you were never familiar with at your level. Normally only used at executive, management, and senior subject matter specialist levels. But, this discussion and your comments do not even apply! Read the article closely. She is/they are trying to prove discrimination, not false accusations of incompetence.

When you gonna stop dumping such trash on here? Trying to make people believe that you actually know something! Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

GoVols025 writes:

in response to Johnny_Aint_No_Del_Shofner:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

The only thing I have to admit is that it is really laughable that there are people on here that really believe your BS. And that's all your junk is ... BS. You never offer a solution, you seem to thrive on calling people idiots and morons, and your only message is to ridicule people. Why don't you go peddle your trash elsewhere. It would save us the trouble of paging past your mindless nonsense.

alfrizzle097 writes:

in response to volnsc:

My thoughts exactly. Now I don't have a clue what is really going on here, but on the surface I think UT may lose their butts on this. This lady had superior reviews for years and suddenly, without any bad reviews by her superiors, she is fired. And they intend to support this with "an undated, unsigned, and unadressed letter from Warlick." Who at this level writes such letters? Just saying this episode might not pass the sniff test.

Could it be either a print out of an email, a word document attached to an email, or even a letter she typed out and had someone deliver?

And I would point out that the women's coaches ARE her superiors in any way that matters. I can give my employees positive periodic reviews all I want. If my GM sees them performing below expectations, they will be gone.

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to GoVols025:

Utter nonsense. These folks are probably "At Will" employees and they agreed to that when they accepted the job. Possibly a classification you were never familiar with at your level. Normally only used at executive, management, and senior subject matter specialist levels. But, this discussion and your comments do not even apply! Read the article closely. She is/they are trying to prove discrimination, not false accusations of incompetence.

When you gonna stop dumping such trash on here? Trying to make people believe that you actually know something! Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

Nah. Being an 'at will employee' means nothing. The legal system still applies. 'At will' means they can send you home lack of work and such.

The employees I wrote oral and written warnings and personal improvement plans -- they were 'at will' employees too.

Where does the rubber meet the road? Money. How much money will it cost to defend this suit?

My point was to these critical letters written by Coach Warlick and whomever else. Without a documented trail of telling Mason, "Your performance is crappy," it puts more of a burden on UT than if they could say, "Here's a warning letter from a year ago."

Pretty simple really.

At some point there will be some depositions under oath. Things will get said and the lawyers on both sides will judge how those statements will sound to a jury. They'll probably reach a figure to settle before a trial. It won't be disclosed. But Hart's bosses will know the amount. If Hart screwed up, the amount will be larger. It's like Mattie Ross says in "True Grit".

"...I will take it up with mine - Lawyer Daggett. And he will make money and I will make money and your lawyer will make money... and you, Mr. Licensed Auctioneer, you will foot the bill."

It's hard to tell about these things, but Mason's lawyers must figure there is some substance there. They aim to get some money on that basis.

Walt

UT '81

GoVols025 writes:

in response to Johnny_Aint_No_Del_Shofner:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

First of all, who asked you? I was responding to your romper room buddy Walt. Or are you all the same person and you forget which name you're hiding behand today?

Next thing, do you have a reference to someone not being allowed to apply for a job or are you just making it up ... like you make up most of your trash. And of course, any hiring manager can deny any application for a job.

Now for some facts. If your story is really true, what were the qualificactions for the job? What are the capabilities of the "person" you are referring to?

Obviously you are not famailier with the term "at will employment," since you jumped from employee status to applicatant status. Look it up before you start showing how stupid you really are.

Look pal, let's be honest. Niether you nor I really know what is going on with this situation. And you spreading rumors, lies, falsehoods, and opinions doesn't help the matter. When are you dorks going to understand that just becasue you have a fake name, a keyboard, and limited understanding of the English language does not make you an expert about anything. From the posts that many of you idiots make, your lack of intelligence shows.

Give facts doofus, not just your raw rambling rumors.

This was my response to you under the name of "Johnny_Do_Diddly_Wop_Whatever." It says the same thing. It's rather nauseating that every time I come on here you are flapping your jaws about something you know nothing about.

"The only thing I have to admit is that it is really laughable that there are people on here that really believe your BS. And that's all your junk is ... BS. You never offer a solution, you seem to thrive on calling people idiots and morons, and your only message is to ridicule people. Why don't you go peddle your trash elsewhere. It would save us the trouble of paging past your mindless nonsense."

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to GoVols025:

Utter nonsense. These folks are probably "At Will" employees and they agreed to that when they accepted the job. Possibly a classification you were never familiar with at your level. Normally only used at executive, management, and senior subject matter specialist levels. But, this discussion and your comments do not even apply! Read the article closely. She is/they are trying to prove discrimination, not false accusations of incompetence.

When you gonna stop dumping such trash on here? Trying to make people believe that you actually know something! Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Go peddle your BS elsewhere.

You don't know what you are talking about.

"Thirty-seven U.S. states (and the District of Columbia) also recognize an implied contract as an exception to at-will employment.[15] Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists."[15] Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_...

A big thing for employers here is again - money.

Say you've got 20 lawyers and 10 paralegals. That is X amount of work they can handle. If you have to assign a lawyer and 2 paralegals to a case, those are assets you don't have available.

If your HR policy requires the type of progressive discipline that I have outlined (and it is properly applied), then you are not nearly as likely to need to deploy those legal assets when you decide to terminate someone.

Duh.

Again, this implies that Mason's situation has some aspects that her lawyers think will work to their benefit. That is - they will make money.

Walt

UT '81

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to GoVols025:

First of all, who asked you? I was responding to your romper room buddy Walt. Or are you all the same person and you forget which name you're hiding behand today?

Next thing, do you have a reference to someone not being allowed to apply for a job or are you just making it up ... like you make up most of your trash. And of course, any hiring manager can deny any application for a job.

Now for some facts. If your story is really true, what were the qualificactions for the job? What are the capabilities of the "person" you are referring to?

Obviously you are not famailier with the term "at will employment," since you jumped from employee status to applicatant status. Look it up before you start showing how stupid you really are.

Look pal, let's be honest. Niether you nor I really know what is going on with this situation. And you spreading rumors, lies, falsehoods, and opinions doesn't help the matter. When are you dorks going to understand that just becasue you have a fake name, a keyboard, and limited understanding of the English language does not make you an expert about anything. From the posts that many of you idiots make, your lack of intelligence shows.

Give facts doofus, not just your raw rambling rumors.

This was my response to you under the name of "Johnny_Do_Diddly_Wop_Whatever." It says the same thing. It's rather nauseating that every time I come on here you are flapping your jaws about something you know nothing about.

"The only thing I have to admit is that it is really laughable that there are people on here that really believe your BS. And that's all your junk is ... BS. You never offer a solution, you seem to thrive on calling people idiots and morons, and your only message is to ridicule people. Why don't you go peddle your trash elsewhere. It would save us the trouble of paging past your mindless nonsense."

You are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Walt

UT '81

WaltGoVoIs writes:

"According to personnel files, Mason received a strong ranking in her formal 2011 performance review filed on March 13, 2012. She scored a 21 out of a possible 25 points, rating her as “fully achieving and occasionally exceeding expectations.”

Mason received similar reviews over her 10 years in the UT athletic department. All reviews were conducted by Moshak. Mason was promoted to assistant athletics director for strength and conditioning in August 2008.

In Mason’s 2010 performance review, Moshak wrote, “She has solidified the Lady Vol Strength and Conditioning program as one of the top in the nation.”

No formal 2012 performance review results were included in the personnel files. According to UT spokesperson Margie Nichols it was determined no formal performance review for the 2012 fiscal year was necessary after the letters were submitted by Pensky and Warlick."

Yep, trouble for the university. And trouble brought on apparently by Dave "Your Cheating" Hart.

Walt

UT '81

eVOLved writes:

in response to underthehill:

just my opinion..How can anyone be this stupid..Mason's attorneys have to love this..do you expect to convince a jury or judge this letter had nothing to do with the lawsuit..the evidence I see in this article indicates to me it does..

Yessir! As an incorrigible azzhole, I know that once you piss a few people off, the truth doesn't matter. All anybody wants to do is dick you over one way or the other. There is no way a new basketball coach should be able to say a trainer isn't doing her job right because the players aren't getting "quicker." Source: I've been a major debag at work and pizzed many people off, so I know this game.

She likely has a case. Do they really have less female athletes than male athletes? Does the Lady Vols S&C coach put in less hours than the Vols S&C coach?

richvol writes:

Look at the difference that the UConn center made in her physic over her four years and look at the overweight post players that we had in Pat's last years. The men's BB strength is guilty as well. Wayne Chism spent four years here and never gained any muscle or definition.

This is a very demanding job that requires real talent. We should try to hire UConn's strength coach.

GoVols025 writes:

in response to WaltGoVoIs:

Nah. Being an 'at will employee' means nothing. The legal system still applies. 'At will' means they can send you home lack of work and such.

The employees I wrote oral and written warnings and personal improvement plans -- they were 'at will' employees too.

Where does the rubber meet the road? Money. How much money will it cost to defend this suit?

My point was to these critical letters written by Coach Warlick and whomever else. Without a documented trail of telling Mason, "Your performance is crappy," it puts more of a burden on UT than if they could say, "Here's a warning letter from a year ago."

Pretty simple really.

At some point there will be some depositions under oath. Things will get said and the lawyers on both sides will judge how those statements will sound to a jury. They'll probably reach a figure to settle before a trial. It won't be disclosed. But Hart's bosses will know the amount. If Hart screwed up, the amount will be larger. It's like Mattie Ross says in "True Grit".

"...I will take it up with mine - Lawyer Daggett. And he will make money and I will make money and your lawyer will make money... and you, Mr. Licensed Auctioneer, you will foot the bill."

It's hard to tell about these things, but Mason's lawyers must figure there is some substance there. They aim to get some money on that basis.

Walt

UT '81

Again ... nonsense. But if you feel better typing all of that crapola... so be it.

This case will never even get to the deposition phase. Soon, if not already, the parties will sit down and reach a settlement and that will be the end of it. And that is probably all that the claimants are interested in ... the settlement. If anyone, including the claimants, is naive enough to believe that this legal sniping is going to bring UT to it's knees, well, keep on drinking and smoking.

You and I both know that this whole mess is because for far too long too many people have been riding Summitt's coat tails and basking in the glow of her legend. Dave Hart was hired to clean out the good ol' girl club... and he is. So now some people are squeaking, bcause they got "cleaned out."

I hope these people understand that it usually doesn't look too good on your resume to say that you sued your former employeer.

alfrizzle097 writes:

in response to eVOLved:

Yessir! As an incorrigible azzhole, I know that once you piss a few people off, the truth doesn't matter. All anybody wants to do is dick you over one way or the other. There is no way a new basketball coach should be able to say a trainer isn't doing her job right because the players aren't getting "quicker." Source: I've been a major debag at work and pizzed many people off, so I know this game.

She likely has a case. Do they really have less female athletes than male athletes? Does the Lady Vols S&C coach put in less hours than the Vols S&C coach?

Even if the two jobs have the same hours and people they are responsible for, that does not mean the two positions have equal value.

richvol writes:

Tennessee is a right to work state. That means you don't need a reason to fire anyone.

GoVols025 writes:

Yup, ya'all, everything is a conspiracy and the sky is falling. If you really believe that the University would let Hart do something so flawed that it would put the University in jeopardy, then we all should send our diplomas back to Knowville and demand a refund of our tuition fees. But, if it simply gives you guys the opportunity to jaw and talk about stuff you know nothing about, then ... so be it.

volsmith writes:

Looks to me like Jimmy Cheek and Dave Hart got two first year coaches to do what Cheek and Hart told them to do. I'm on the side of the plaintiffs in these cases. I think Cheek and Hart pretty much did what they are accused of, but there may not be enough evidence to prove it. Those two are a detriment to the school and the athletic program.

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to GoVols025:

Again ... nonsense. But if you feel better typing all of that crapola... so be it.

This case will never even get to the deposition phase. Soon, if not already, the parties will sit down and reach a settlement and that will be the end of it. And that is probably all that the claimants are interested in ... the settlement. If anyone, including the claimants, is naive enough to believe that this legal sniping is going to bring UT to it's knees, well, keep on drinking and smoking.

You and I both know that this whole mess is because for far too long too many people have been riding Summitt's coat tails and basking in the glow of her legend. Dave Hart was hired to clean out the good ol' girl club... and he is. So now some people are squeaking, bcause they got "cleaned out."

I hope these people understand that it usually doesn't look too good on your resume to say that you sued your former employeer.

What settlement? These are 'at will' employees, right? They have no rights at all. You said so.

We are outsiders looking in. There are some lawyers who think Mason has a case.

No one is expecting UT to be brought to its knees. We do wonder what the heck is going on. Who benefits from this scorched earth policy that Dave "Your Cheating" Hart is carrying out?

You say:

"Dave Hart was hired to clean out the good ol' girl club... and he is."

Why? What was broken? Why fix it? It it really Cheek doing this cr@p behind the scenes? Tearing everyone else down to make himself look better?

Is that why we hired a disgraced AD from FSU? A man who should have never been considered?

Walt

UT '81

tovolny writes:

My suggestion is: negotiate politely and with finesse and pay these ladies and move on to better control in the future. This BAD publicity is damaging the LadyVols more than trying to hang onto a fist-full of dollars.

The people who are looking worse in this situation are those with "assistant this or assistant that" attached to their names. These pseudolites need to know and be shown how to dismiss employees that are not doing their job. With proper counseling, I know from experience that most employees will rise to a new level of performance when presented with an opportunity to improve. This whole thing was mishandled by the pseudolites from the "get-go." You can't change a Chevrolet into a Cadillac by changing the chrome emblems.

We don't need this publicity...sweep it under the rug. C'MON MAN!

AllforTenn writes:

in response to underthehill:

just my opinion..How can anyone be this stupid..Mason's attorneys have to love this..do you expect to convince a jury or judge this letter had nothing to do with the lawsuit..the evidence I see in this article indicates to me it does..

In my opinion (as a retired attorney and judge)you are wrong.

johnlg00 writes:

in response to volnsc:

My thoughts exactly. Now I don't have a clue what is really going on here, but on the surface I think UT may lose their butts on this. This lady had superior reviews for years and suddenly, without any bad reviews by her superiors, she is fired. And they intend to support this with "an undated, unsigned, and unadressed letter from Warlick." Who at this level writes such letters? Just saying this episode might not pass the sniff test.

Goodness knows, I have no brief for any of the principals in this case, but Mason's superior reviews were written by Jenny Moshak, Heather's co-plaintiff in the lawsuit against UT. Holly and Pensky were two of Mason's main customers. They will have to stand up at some point to attest that they were indeed the authors of that letter and that they arrived at their conclusions on the basis of their own views of how their teams' interests were served--or not--by Mason's S&C program. It would certainly not be a good thing if that "undated, unsigned, unaddressed" part of those statements is not clarified fairly soon.

AllforTenn writes:

in response to underthehill:

Interesting info Walt..but I think this could indeed have an effect on the lawsuit..I think her attorneys will make an issue on the credibility ..or lack thereof ..of Dave Hart..and I think anything pertaining to this issue will be used by them in court and under oath..I think they may be allowed to address the issues he had at Fla State as part of their argument..we'll see..

You and Walt are dreaming and way off base. Walt will just keep bashing Hart every chance he gets.

WaltGoVoIs writes:

in response to tovolny:

My suggestion is: negotiate politely and with finesse and pay these ladies and move on to better control in the future. This BAD publicity is damaging the LadyVols more than trying to hang onto a fist-full of dollars.

The people who are looking worse in this situation are those with "assistant this or assistant that" attached to their names. These pseudolites need to know and be shown how to dismiss employees that are not doing their job. With proper counseling, I know from experience that most employees will rise to a new level of performance when presented with an opportunity to improve. This whole thing was mishandled by the pseudolites from the "get-go." You can't change a Chevrolet into a Cadillac by changing the chrome emblems.

We don't need this publicity...sweep it under the rug. C'MON MAN!

Not doing their job?

"According to personnel files, Mason received a strong ranking in her formal 2011 performance review filed on March 13, 2012. She scored a 21 out of a possible 25 points, rating her as “fully achieving and occasionally exceeding expectations.”

Mason received similar reviews over her 10 years in the UT athletic department. All reviews were conducted by Moshak. Mason was promoted to assistant athletics director for strength and conditioning in August 2008.

In Mason’s 2010 performance review, Moshak wrote, “She has solidified the Lady Vol Strength and Conditioning program as one of the top in the nation.”

No formal 2012 performance review results were included in the personnel files. According to UT spokesperson Margie Nichols it was determined no formal performance review for the 2012 fiscal year was necessary after the letters were submitted by Pensky and Warlick."

We are more and more a laughingstock because of the leadership of the university.

Walt

UT '81

volnsc writes:

in response to voloffaith:

From another VOL in sc...Ms. Moshak was doing the reviews......the ranks have circled in tight...

Ahhh.....

GoVols025 writes:

in response to AllforTenn:

You and Walt are dreaming and way off base. Walt will just keep bashing Hart every chance he gets.

These guys stretch logic and reality to bash Hart. It's almost comical but it gets tiring to hear the same drivel every night. I think these guys would argue with a "STOP" sign. I find it interesting that whatever the issue there is always "something" that only the basher is aware of.

volnsc writes:

in response to Johnny_Aint_No_Del_Shofner:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Funnyeeee. Dave can be very brassy when it is some elses money. You are spot on.

eVOLved writes:

in response to alfrizzle097:

Even if the two jobs have the same hours and people they are responsible for, that does not mean the two positions have equal value.

You may be right, I guess CBP made more than the legendary CPS, even after the Hamilton-imposed docked salary. Here's an interesting link about Vol Staff salaries from last year: http://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2012/j...

volnsc writes:

in response to WaltGoVoIs:

This type of letter from these coaches would -have- to part of the university's legal strategy.

The question would be - where was the progressive discipline? Was Mason warned before that her results were lacking?

One company I worked at you had to document attempts to help the failing employee:

1. Oral warning (but done in writing)

2. Written warning

3.Personal improvement plan with -quantifiable- goals. Was the person in the office for X number of hours a week? Did they produce Y number of reports per hour?

If it's not on paper it didn't happen.

I would think this would have little effect on her law suit. It's Post Facto. It's just UT touching a base.

Walt

UT '81

Walt, that is exactly how it works in the real world. Corporations do this to cover their hinies. Works, too.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features