College Football Coach Fired for Misconduct
The sudden firing of Sherrone Moore, the University of Michigan Wolverine’s head football coach on December 10, 2025, took many in the sports and media worlds by surprise—just days before the Wolverines’ planned appearance in the Citrus Bowl. And then, hours later more details and reports emerged that Coach Moore was in police custody. According to ESPN, Pittsfield police released a statement Wednesday night saying they responded at 4:10 p.m. to the 3000 block of Ann Arbor Saline Road “for the purposes of investigating an alleged assault . . . A suspect in this case was taken into custody. This incident does not appear to be random in nature, and there appears to be no ongoing threat to the community.” That suspect was Coach Moore—who, according to prosecutors at his initial appearance, barged into the alleged victim’s home and threatened to kill himself after she ended their relationship.
In turn, after calling police, the alleged victim went to the University and cooperated in an investigation which, according to the University, yielded credible evidence of her relationship with Moore, which apparently had gone on for years and been the subject of a previous fruitless internal investigation. In the wake of these developments, the University fired Moore “for cause” due to an inappropriate relationship with a staff member, in violation of university policy—and his contract—which contains a clause prohibiting him from engaging in “conduct that reflects adversely on the University or the Football Program,” and requires him to comport himself “in a manner consistent with the high moral, ethical, and academic standards of the school. These clauses, which are common in executive contracts across the spectrum of sports, business and education, provide a contractual lever for organizations to part ways with their leaders for moral failures. But they do little—if anything—to ensure accountability for employees who have knowledge of inappropriate conduct or who assisted (“aided and abetted”) the failed leader in avoiding detection. And the Michigan situation is a good example.
According to media reports, a law firm is investigating Moore’s relationship to learn who knew what—and when about Coach Moore’s inappropriate relationship, but what is equally clear is that the University previously received a tip that it could not previously corroborate because Coach Moore and the woman denied being romantically involved. So, what’s a university to do when it learns one of its leaders is or may be the subject of an allegation of improper or illegal conduct? Here are a few tips.
- Lock Down the Data. In the Moore case (and many cases before it), the former coach is accused of carrying on an affair with a fellow employee. As in any organization, data is key to any investigation and university leadership should immediately take steps to prevent the deletion of any potential evidence contained in its email system, as well as financial records. These preventative measures can be undertaken behind the scenes by the IT department without raising any suspicions among employees.
- Start at the Edges. In sensitive investigations, it is not uncommon that the subjects of investigation do not want to cooperate. Likewise, witnesses are hesitant to come forward for fear of potential retribution by the subjects of investigation or the University (or in the Michigan example, the athletic department) itself. But even where eyewitnesses (and even the alleged victim) do not want to cooperate with an investigation, investigators can start with the paper trail e.g., financial records, emails, text messages, and surveillance video. Confronting witnesses with evidence (even if relatively circumstantial) goes a long way in encouraging transparency. So too does leverage.
- Use Leverage. In many organizations, the employee handbook and ethics and compliance guidelines contain the rules governing ongoing employment and often (and should) include language mandating that employees participate in any workplace investigation, including by turning over to the University any cell phones or computers used to communicate about their employment. These provisions are key to investigations and can be particularly effective when presented to an employee in a face-to-face meeting. They are presented with two options: cooperate or face immediate termination, per the terms of their employment and the University’s ethics rules.
- Show Strength. As in sports, conducting an effective internal investigation requires assembling the right team. The investigating University should communicate consistently its commitment to ethics, transparency, and zero tolerance for misconduct; and must walk the talk. The law firm and any other professionals hired to support the investigation should be reputable, but also skilled in identifying the right professionals to handle the various tasks, including what are often sensitive—and sometimes confrontational—witness interviews.
