Huffman-Titan Case Enters New Arena : Jurisprudence: Both sides offering numerous depositions to support arguments in former coach’s wrongful termination suit.

When Jim Huffman’s wrongful termination suit against Cal State Fullerton goes to trial, the school will argue he was fired as Titan women’s volleyball coach because he didn’t do his job very well.

But Huffman’s attorneys will rely heavily on depositions that are seen as supporting their contention that he was terminated simply because some administrators considered him a pain in the neck.

The trial is scheduled to begin Monday in Orange County Superior Court. The $1.2-million suit alleges Huffman was fired March 23, 1992, in retaliation “because he spoke out about illegalities in the CSUF athletic department and initiated successful legal proceedings, which resulted in negative publicity to the school and its administrators.”

The firing came one working day after a judge signed a preliminary injunction blocking the school’s attempt to drop volleyball Jan. 28, 1992. Huffman and his players had filed suit alleging the move violated state sex discrimination laws.

Fullerton permanently reinstated volleyball as part of a settlement the following May, but Huffman, whose teams were 25-80 during his three years as coach, was not rehired.

Kevin Gerry, state deputy attorney general who is representing the school, said in an interview the decision to fire Huffman was made in December, 1991, before Huffman and the team filed the suit.

Gerry listed the team’s poor performance, both on the court and in the classroom, minor NCAA violations during Huffman’s tenure and Huffman’s substandard fund-raising as primary reasons Huffman’s contract was not renewed.

Huffman’s attorneys will contend evidence taken in depositions shows otherwise.

In one, former Fullerton Associate Athletic Director Steve DiTolla said that at a March 20, 1992, meeting, Jack Bedell, the university’s associate vice president for academic affairs, “made a recommendation that we terminate Jim immediately. And the termination was based upon the months of trouble that were caused by Jim.”

Asked to recall the exact words Bedell used, DiTolla said: “The gist was something along the lines of, ‘We need to get rid of that so and so as quickly as possible.’ ”

Bill Shumard, Titan athletic director, and Maryalyce Jeremiah, Titan associate athletic director, also were at that meeting but claim in depositions that they “didn’t remember” Bedell making such a statement.

“Of the four people at that meeting, DiTolla is the only one who says anything at all like that took place,” Gerry said. “Ironically, DiTolla is also a former Cal State Fullerton employee whose appointment was not renewed by Shumard.”

In his deposition, Bedell claimed that “nobody ever in my presence, including myself, has ever expressed what I would consider anger about Mr. Huffman.”

But asked what he thought of the decision to terminate Huffman at that time, Bedell said: “It was stupid . . . I thought the timing sucked, and that it could make the university look bad.”

Shumard said in depositions that the volleyball team’s poor cumulative grade-point average (1.99) contributed to Huffman’s firing. Jared Huffman, Jim’s brother and San Francisco-based attorney, said fall semester grades weren’t calculated until late December or early January of that school year, after the school says the decision was made.

“Isn’t it true that you didn’t know about this 1.99 team GPA until Jan. 29, 1992?” Huffman asked Shumard in his deposition.

Replied Shumard: “That could have been. That could have been.”

Shumard went on to say that study hall reports and regular academic checks of volleyball players during the fall of 1991 had showed unsatisfactory progress.

“The actual GPA was not available until after the decision regarding Huffman had been made,” Gerry said, “but there is a good amount of academic information available to both Shumard and Jeremiah during the course of that fall semester.”

The last of Huffman’s three one-year contracts officially expired Dec. 31, 1991, but Huffman continued working through January under the assumption that, like the two previous years, his contract would be renewed in the spring.

Huffman’s suit alleges that, shortly before the announcement the program was being dropped, Shumard helped Huffman secure a long-term lease through a CSUF program that obtains donated or leased cars for coaches and chose Huffman as the “coaches representative” for an athletic department fund-raiser in May, 1992.

“Why send him to the NCAA (volleyball) Final Four in December to recruit and network, why let him recruit in January, schedule club and recreational volleyball activities for the rest of the year, why do all these things if you’re going to fire him?” Jared Huffman said.

“The key point is not a word was mentioned to anyone about firing Jim Huffman until March 20, the day the court granted the preliminary injunction. There’s not a single thing in writing to support their claim that they made the decision to terminate in the fall of 1991.”

But Gerry says the school determined at that time it would not offer Huffman a new contract, then delayed any announcement after deciding in late December to drop volleyball. It took about a month for that move to be approved, and Gerry said the school retained Huffman in an effort to help preserve his reputation and make it easier for him to find another coaching job.

“As a courtesy to the coach, his non-renewal was explained that since the program was being terminated, we don’t have a position for you,” Gerry said. “That would help the plaintiff move on in his career, land another job without having to explain a (firing). They wanted to handle it so the coach and university would come out in a positive light.”

But Gerry said those intentions went awry when Huffman filed suit and won reinstatement of the volleyball team. The March 20 injunction did not require Fullerton to retain the coach.

The following Monday, Huffman was fired. “Then, when they realized they would have a wrongful termination suit, they came up with all these reasons,” Jared Huffman said.

Jared Huffman also claims the California State University system tried to cover up potentially damaging evidence.

While representing the National Organization for Women in its recent gender equity suit against the CSU system, Huffman received a copy of a Feb. 12, 1993, memo from Anne Padilla, assistant director of governmental affairs for the CSU Board of Trustees, to Scott Plotkin, director of governmental affairs, regarding gender equity.

But one paragraph of the memo was whited out. Huffman asked the court to order the defense to produce the original document, which Huffman received Dec. 24. The restored paragraph referred to a discussion between Padilla and Catherine Wynne, a Fullerton campus attorney, concerning the Fullerton situation.

The paragraph read, in part: “Catherine also said that we were very vulnerable on this court case, mostly because of the way the coach was fired. Catherine sees the issues as separable; the firing of the volleyball coach was justifiable because of the team’s losing record. The abolishment of the volleyball team, however, left us open to the gender equity complaint. The fact that the team was cut before the coach was fired tied the two cases together and muddled the issue. We reinstated the team, but did not rehire the coach.”

Said Jared Huffman: “They blotted it out because they knew it was damaging.”

Said Gerry: “I respect their opinion and their right to make (this document) an issue, but in no way was there retaliation on account of Huffman having expressed his opinion regarding gender equity. From Cal State Fullerton’s perspective, this is a job-performance decision not to renew the appointment of a temporary, part-time employee.”

In addition to $1.2 million in general and special damages, Huffman is seeking punitive damages and attorneys fees, which have risen above $100,000. Bedell, Shumard, CSUF President Milton Gordon, CSU Chancellor Barry Munitz and the CSU Board of Trustees are listed as defendants.

Jared Huffman said he made an offer this past fall to settle the case for “less than $500,000.” The defense, he said, countered with an offer “that was frankly an insult.”