A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit brought by the former athletic director of University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) against the school, which claimed he was wrongfully terminated.
The case was previously reported on in Sports Litigation Alert by Hackney Publications Senior Writer Gary Chester, who wrote about an earlier ruling in the litigation.
“Plaintiff Brian Barrio was a successful athletic director at Central Connecticut State, (before being) recruited for the same position at UMBC in 2019,” wrote Chester. When he took that job, “he was allegedly assured that there were no significant Title IX issues lurking in the shadows. Five years after he accepted the AD position, Barrio was terminated for supposedly mishandling Title IX complaints that he had been told did not exist.
“Barrio responded with a complaint against UMBC, the UMBC Board of Trustees, and UMBC’s president, Sheares Ashby, alleging fraudulent inducement, retaliation in violation of Title IX, promissory estoppel, and libel.
Were UMBC’s Title IX Woes in the Rear View Mirror?
“Barrio claimed that he conducted due diligence into whether there were active Title IX claims against UMBC before he accepted the AD position. During the hiring process, at least two UMBC administrators told Barrio that a sexual misconduct claim against a baseball player and a gender equity complaint related to the softball team had been resolved, and that UMBC had learned valuable lessons about Title IX compliance.
“Barrio asked the UMBC search committee if there were other potential Title IX claims. His questions concerned the athletic department’s senior staff, including Chad Craddock, the head swim coach and associate AD overseeing Aquatics. A member of the committee said that Cradock was ‘a wonderful and highly regarded leader’ and ‘a perfect fit for UMBC.’ A second administrator told Barrio privately that Craddock was ‘incredibly well-respected … and was beloved on campus.’ According to the complaint, Ashby and a UMBC administrator told Barrio that all issues concerning Title IX reporting issues had been resolved.
“Barrio started his new job in January 2020, but the campus was shut down weeks later due to COVID. Soon thereafter, student-athletes on the swimming team reported that Cradock had violated COVID protocols. The plaintiff investigated the claims and reported them to UMBC’s general counsel and its Title IX office. Barrio suspended Cradock. After the suspension, members of the swim team allegedly told Barrio that ‘they felt safe to report Cradock’s sexual abuse and assaults.’ Barrio claimed that UMBC had previously protected Cradock and covered up reports of his misconduct because the team was successful and because Cradock was a good fundraiser. He claimed that his swift action led to Cradock’s removal and brought an end to the abuse against UMBC student-athletes.
The Feds Investigate UMBC
“The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a Title IX investigation and issued a report in early 2024. After reading the report, Barrio claimed he became distressed from learning ‘how much the University had known about Cradock’s abusive and illegal actions, and its cover up efforts, long before he was interviewed.’ The report stated that administrators and the Title IX office knew as early as 2016 that Cradock was not reporting incidents of sexual harassment involving student-athletes and that the Title IX office failed to address his misconduct.
“According to the complaint, on February 9, 2024, Barrio told Ashby that a better funded institution was pursuing him for its AD position. Ashby allegedly told Barrio that she would sign an extension of his contract through 2028. On March 14, 2024, Ashby told Barrio that she was going to terminate his contract. She issued a public statement stating that the ‘failures between 2015 and 2020 identified by the DOJ were the collective responsibility of many individuals … [who failed] to comply with their Title IX obligations …’
“On March 19, 2024, Barrio discussed the statement with Ashby, who allegedly acknowledged the statement did not apply to him. Ashby, however, refused to issue a statement exonerating the plaintiff. UMBC fired Barrio that day. [Less than one month later, UMBC agreed to pay $4.14 million to the Maryland Department of Justice on behalf of the student-athletes who had been sexually harassed by Cradock.]”
This led to Barrio’s suit. And, ultimately, the settlement.
UMBC has issued the following statement.
“In November 2020, student athletes reported misconduct by Coach Cradock to Mr. Barrio, and Mr. Barrio responded appropriately to those reports,” UMBC said in a statement. “Mr. Barrio’s contract was not terminated for cause and neither the DOJ nor UMBC identified any action or omission by Mr. Barrio that contributed to the misconduct by Mr. Cradock. UMBC wishes Mr. Barrio well in his future endeavors in athletics administration.”
Barrio issued a statement saying he felt vindicated.
“Today’s settlement finally vindicates me and allows me to move on after a long and difficult period,” he said. “It was important for the record to reflect that I handled this situation with integrity and with care for students,” his statement continued. “This settlement brings closure for me and for my family, and I hope it underscores the importance of supporting those who take the right actions when faced with misconduct in the workplace and encourages others to speak up and take action if they are faced with a similar situation.”
Lessons for Employers and Prospective Employees
Instructively, Chester produced in SLA the following “lessons for employers and prospective employees:
“Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the case illustrates the importance of employers providing accurate information during the employee interview process. Even if UMBC successfully defends the case, or pays a nominal settlement, the University has incurred legal expenses and has drawn public attention to an embarrassing chapter in its history.
“On the flip side, a prospective employee who suspects that there may be more than meets the eye on a key employment issue might want to take a pass and look elsewhere. Or, if possible, the prospective employee might insist that the written contract includes an employer’s material representations. A prospective employer’s refusal to do so would give the potential employee pause when considering the job offer.”
